Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): their work. Although the parties in Lansing focused their arguments on whether the airline was an ISP, the court observed that an ISP was neither mentioned nor defined by the CDA. Instead, the proper focus was on whether the airline was a provider of an interactive computer service. The court answered this question in the affirmative: We find that, under the plain language of the statute and its broad definition of an ICS [interactive computer service], an employer like defendant qualifies as a provider or user of an ICS because defendant uses an information system or service that multiple users, like defendant’s employees, use to access the Internet. Lansing, 366 Ill.Dec. 537, 980 N.E.2d at 637. Cf. Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal.App.4th 684, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 772, 777 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Here, the designated evidence clearly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that public library was immune from suit under section 230 because it provided an interactive computer service by enabling multiple users to access the internet through its public computers (B) holding that public officials are immune from suit for discretionary functions like training under louisiana law (C) holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts (D) holding state immune from suit brought by its own citizens (E) holding that a schools internal mail system was not a public forum because users needed a principals permission for access
Output (English): holding state immune from suit brought by its own citizens