and it's a case about broken promises that i would like to present to us framework where decision in this case remedy for now and begin by talking briefly about the facts pointing out certain cases in areas of law for you to consider all the stress we have this section two thirty immunity issues suppose yahoo did not offer to take this material down would you agree that the probably six motion was properly granted i would agree yes that in fact it was the affirmative action arrest by the representative of yahoo and contacting the plaintiff at at an effort to says what's happening here and that person on their own representative contacts the plaintiff and says stanley the material the letters you've sent prior and we will take care of this stuff when i'm sure you're going to get into this but are you arguing that there is a waiver of two thirty immunity by the post contact conduct or is this a separate contract let's say with separate consideration which that would presumably be some kind of a contract action would that also be outside of section two thirty and does it matter whether it's contractual or porn tortious i do not think it matters in the fact that  them to take it down with that bit different taste i think it would depend on what was said by yahoo but yes that's the the short answer is i do think it would be different if yahoo did not affirmatively undertake this  and weber mother said we're not the party who put it up so we're not sure we can do anything but within forty eight hours it was taken down and that case website writer did not affirmatively say we're going to do anything and so i do think that's a critical that ok and we did in fact argue at the trial court level that we believe there was a question of fact we needed time for discovery but as the courts where we didn't we neither had oral argument or had any other chance other than the ruling on the  starting point and the focus point about this breach of negligent performance promise the question before the court is does this claim fall outside of communications decency act section two thirty our position is that absolutely you start of course with the plain language and you begin your analysis there and then turn to congressional intent if the plain language leaves the question open you are the plain language of the statute says no provider or user many interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider so publisher speaker our position is that this is a tort that if a rose outside entirely the issue of being a publisher speaker has so we have this pas roommates is focused on information content providers and what steps yahoo may have taken to develop in whole or in part any information because if you decide that this claim is outside to other courts as being is going too far in court concluded that the plain language of section two thirty three created a federal in unity for any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information origina party well the idea that any cause of action is prohibited as all of you are where we started in our brief that there are many commentators and many courts especially recently that seven surface just cited in the chicago mark realized that they started to look very carefully at the language now in remission and you raise that issue remains focuses on the content provider who's creating the information here we're people can take you around two thirty in a lot of way then why would anyone ask why would any website ever take anything down i mean what it clearly is a publisher you're not responsible to write them you would just take a policy that they'll is what yahoo's chose to stay for instance you're right one they could have done nothing to you and i think the policy behind the statute was to try to get them to do something on their own and second they could get something on their own so they didn't have to say anything to the point they could have on their own made decisions about the content but further i think of a public policy perspective it seems unreasonable to me and judge ruled in the in the dissent and vassal points out it would seem unreasonable that along with expect that somebody could just promises to do something and have somebody not be able to rely on those promises and not have some terms of taking things down so on its own it could have done something or could have done nothing but to tell somebody if we're going to do something then creates a separate situation and i think that's where our case differs boyfriend engaged in was her task and cool nevertheless as a matter of law this is really no different than the great multitude cases in which courts have deemed an that yahoo decided that mr barnes was a fabulous blogger and they wanted to be sure to have content on on yahoo and agreed to pay her five thousand dollars in exchange for she was so intent on having the information that was there removed that she offered to pay me you know five thousand dollars in exchange for removing it and you would agree enforceable contract or not an enforceable contract even from some types of if you contract actors i would say that where we don't get to that question here because there is no claim of a well there's a claim of course i contract which if we're getting closer and closer the question isn't when there has already been a promise if somebody could just call up and complain and then liability could be predicated on not doing anything it's hopeless because who knows if these people are in general going to be truthful or if they themselves  public policy arguments work just as much here in favor of yahoo as they do in other circumstances and i'd like to try to develop that point this theory of liability that is being asserted here is a good samaritan  of third party content here it absolutely would the entire it is the entire harm that's alleged is harm flowing from the third party content the a failure to act is a failure to  it also puts you in the very same position that the ex boyfriend could be put in as a matter of liability there's no doubt and congress intended that the originators of harmful happen should be fully on the hook for liability and if mr barnes wants to go the california supreme court specifically found that that was a it was appropriate to look at that subsequent legislative history because of the situation of this was an anathema to new legislation and in the reach of section two th some claim that that maybe this really is just like roommates because they they want to develop some notion that yahoo somehow contributed to this content online service providers if it did not want them to be worse off because they had gone part way down the path of attempting to do the right thing if we were talking restatement ninety and spread of part thank you counsel your time has expired like yours the case just argued will be submitted for decision and the court will a