heat good morning my name is michael evans and i'm appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and appellants the for having fossils of san fernando valley in san diego they please the court on the main issue in this case is where their roommate is immune under section two thirty c one of the communications decency act for the content of its own forms content that roommate alone creates and develops the district court concluded that roommate could be immune in fact was immune for its own forms and plaintiffs contend that the very least this was error and irreducible minimum in order to obtain immunity under section two hundred thirty c one of the communications decency act an interactive computer service such as roommates must establish that  parts that don't apply here it shall be unlawful to make printer publish a costly make printed or publish any notice statement or advertisement with respect to the sale of rental to other dwelling that indicates any preference limitation or circuit on the last twelve months united states v spacewalkers which involve precisely an entity precisely like rumi not an online entity but a housing information vendor an entity that on its own collapse i'm sorry rents or sells new property or merely acts as an intermediary provides listings in attempts to match up housing providers with homes and there was a claim that there that the intermediary that the the housing listing service engaged in discrimination under section thirty six zero four six and the house at the the service said to the second circle i can't be liable under section thirty six of course you can i don't own or rent any housing myself i'm just intermedia and the second circuit specifically rejected that argument and said that for a number of reasons three six or four seat applies to anyone who engaged in the prohibited can't and there's a longstanding history of cases under the fair housing act holding that limited under the statute is mrs murphy exception that applies to the rental of rooms in some circumstances so yes it would be a little difference under the fair housing act to that extent you're also might be i'm sorry but i thought i thought you took the housing including some of the shared housing that they had part of roommate services absolutely this is very thing might apply to some of the share housing but what about your typical case where somebody is that i think with that with expressing that kind of preference be prohibited by the statute with respect to share housing almost all preferences are going to be prohibited by the statute here is possibly an exception for a statement that will express a preference for the same sex and as a practical matter in this case regardless of whether that exemption exists under the it maybe not most but much of what they do is find roommates who often are looking just for somebody of their own sex because you know you services that is objectionable that is objectionable i don't think you should have to disclose your sexual orientation or to be to participate in the housing market but that issue is based on the state law claims which are not in front of  have shown that as a result of alleged discrimination they have diverted resources and suffered frustration of mission in order to investigate i look back through the records somewhere that i couldn't find anything actually supporting that i mean it's not only can p record below contain declarations from both for housing councils establishing frustration of mission of diversion of resources damages consistent with fair housing council versus moran the only only the declaration relating to this for how the council of san fernando criteria by which we should match your potential roommate when you're asked about the residence and its location you're asked specifically you're asked for information about your residence that exact word that use your own household description specify details regarding your household we couldn't be any more clear about this the services being provided here and that is we're matching people based on their preferences for roommates and the location and and the situation and characteristics of the household that's being shared if people are posting on there other than sharing a home then they're abusing the site and they're not being truthful in their posting the issue that interactive computer services is is not responsible for an abuse so what we've made we make very clear that it's a roommate site and we're providing the service or really  with the best person i've ever shared an apartment with and these are these are posed in an automated way they're collected they reviewed and put in their post and rotate in an automated way are again o lawyers that are saying what's the landlord what's the definition of a landlord land what we if you go to the site you look at it landlord to the extent that used is just shorthand for the person who has a place how do you describe the person who already has a place and wants to share the place because met most times that's the paradigm situation people already have a place they live in manhattan beach they're close to the shore of the beach the the brand is expensive they want another person to share with so they can stay in a place of such a beautiful locale so people are looking for and that's the way the site is set up they're looking for people that will come in and share with them in those situations and in that situation i think the site w particular case and i don't know what the circumstances were we don't have an interest in any property we don't take a cut of any deal we're not brokers all we are was we provide a forum for the exchange of information  site you're asked to describe yourself me let's focus on the issue on the protective are you arguing protected classes if they're complaining that you asked whether you're male or female you're asked whether you will live with children or not will live with children those are mandatory use your actual system let's say you are woman and you say you know a woman you would never be matched with somebody that says i feel for gay men right it will choices are will live with any man straight or gay or will live with any female straight or lesbian will live with children so the form the default form of the form is no preference stated so if you look at the form reverse order i think that the mere inquiry is not violative of the f h a i think the suitcase and the second circuit says that we don't have an interest in property there's no real property transaction going on here the case is that  matchmaker situation in verifying what's it it's an automated system with a computer matches up based on those multiple choice now ok anyway you could sort of say that when i'm asking this question then you just say we determined that could this court decide whether they had was actionable or not under the fair housing act or would it have to be sent back to the district court which i understand what the fair housing councils argue they're complaining about is an optional form that enters or optional if they're not compelled to respond to any questions in that right but if this was the area nations roommate dot com and it says state your preference because i think the first amendment is the alligator in the back of here because the this is roommate speech this is speech calculated to find someone to live with and that falls within the right of it to minnesota station i don't think the government can regulate speech that vindicate if you find all the c d a doesn't immunize roommates then you obviously are obligated to move on to the first amendment and decide where the government can read it can properly regulate speech in this regard and where the speech is vindicat because we squarely have roommates feature and the facts enveloping the court below are that this is roommate speech and if and of mr grunow the executive director of the fair housing council san fernando valley she acknowledged in her deposition that it was perfectly ok to choose a roommate based on common interests common racial background common language common heritage and that was perfectly fine she said that the with the act was  advertising and your honor the case law is that if this lawful conduct if we've got lawful underlying conduct then we've got to either apply strict scrutiny or the central hudson test and under both  that you know the word roommates itself is a little bit misleading most of the housing on the site the most housing on the site certainly includes a large amount of housing where you're not sharing certainly not sharing bedrooms you're not sharing bathrooms a large homes with very much separate living spaces that's part of the question here the question even with this respect a shared housing you can have a non occupant why are more renting rooms in the house and questions themselves are not immune frankly the district court decided the case exclusively on the question of c d i immunity and so these issues are valid exactly why they violate the fair housing act we never litigate in the district court a violation of the for housing but we feel that under jan second and sterling this type of action statements inquiries into protected status that under the circumstances indicate an intent to screen our clear cut violations  knowing that there was some gender differentiation going on while this certainly is a conceivable one we don't claim any injuries based on for ticket home seekers in this case the only claimed injury is on the part of the fa housing council and the injuries are they've usual minor injury injuries in terms of what it cost to divert resources in and counteract the discrimination that the flip side of the ordinary reader past is that a reader who it's different than the denial that you don't get to do not scream as before you know when i'm going to let you apply for the housing going to screen you out before hand