FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 1 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11888 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 4 7 - CV - FTM - 2 9 - SPC W H I T N E Y I N F O R M A T I O N N E T W O R K , I N C ., a C o lo r a d o c o rp o r a tio n , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s X C E N T R I C V E N T U R E S , L L C , a n A r iz o n a lim ite d liab ility c o m p a n y , B A D B U S I N E S S B U R E A U .O R G , a n A r iz o n a lim ite d liab iity c o m p a n y , E D M A G E D S O N , a n in d iv id u a l, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 1, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: P l a i nt i f f W hi tne y I nf

or m a t i on N e tw or k, I nc . ( “ W hi tne y ” ) appe a l s f r om the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng D ef endant s X ce ntri c V enture’ s ( “ X ce ntri c” ), b a d b u s in e s s b u r e a u .o r g ’s , a n d E d M a g e d s o n ’s ( “M a g e d s o n ” ) c o m b in e d m o tio n to di sm i ss for l ac k o f per sonal j uri sdi ct i on . W e vac at e a nd re m and for further p ro ceed i n g s. I . B AC KG RO UN D W hi tne ys t a t e s tha ti tpr ovi de s “ pos t - s e c onda ry e duc a t i ona l a nd tr a i ni ng p r o d u c ts a n d s e r v ic e s in th e a r e a s o f r e a l e s ta te in v e s tin g , b u s in e s s d e v e lo p m e n t, fi nanci al i nv es tm entand ass etprot ec t i on re al es t at e t o stud ent s w orl d-w i de. ” A m ong othe rthi ngs , W hi tne y c onduc t s m onthl y r e a l e s t a t e tr a i ni ng pr ogr a m s a nd ad v ert i ses i t s serv i ces th ro u g h i n fo m erci al s an d o n v ari o u s w eb si t es. W h i tn ey al so p u rp o r ts to o w n s ta tu to ry a n d c o m m o n la w r ig h ts in v a r io u s m a r k s th a t a r e u s e d in conn ec t i on w i th i t s e du ca t i on al and tra i ni ng se rvi ce s. W hen these m arks ar e ent er ed i nt o an Int ernetse ar ch engi ne, W hi tney s t at es , on e of the se ar ch re sul t s that ap p e a r s is a w e b s ite o p e r a te d b y D e f e n d a n ts . D e f e nda nt s ope r a t e the w e bs i t e s “ w w w . r i pof f r e por t . c om ” a nd

“ ri p o ffrev en g e. co m , ” an d al l eg ed l y “ h o l d th em sel v es o u tt o th e p u b l i c as a

‘ w or l dw i de c ons um e rr e por t i ng w e bs i t e a nd publ i c a t i on, by c ons um e r s f or3

c ons um e r s ’ t o f

i l e a nd doc um e ntc ons um e rc om pl a i nt s about‘ c om pa ni e s or in d iv id u a ls w h o r ip o f

f c o n s u m e r s .’” A c c o r d in g to W h itn e y , D e f e n d a n ts s o lic it c ons um e r s t o s ubm i tc om pl a i nt s abouta ny c om pa ny tha tha s “ r i ppe d” the c o n s u m e r s o f

f , a n d D e f e n d a n ts th e n c h o o s e to p u b lis h c e r ta in o f th e s e c o m p la in ts on thei r w ebsi t e “ w w w . ri po ff re po rt . com , ” there by i m pl yi ng thatthe com pani es nam ed i n the com pl ai nt s a re “ ri pp i ng off” consum er s. W hi tney c on t ends that D e f e n d a n ts d o n o t a tte m p t to v e r if y c o n s u m e rc o m p la in ts f o ra c c u r a c y , a n d s e e k to

“ e xt or t ” m one y f

r om c om pa ni e s c om pl a i ne d abouton D e f e nda nt s ’ w e bs i t e by o f f e r in g to c e a s e p u b lic a tio n o f th e c o m p la in ts in e x c h a n g e f o ra f e e . C om pl ai ni ng thatD ef

endant s’ s use of i t s m arks w as causi ng consum er co n fu si o n an d h arm i n g i t s rep u t at i o n , W h i tn ey (al o n g w i th i t s C E O R u ss W h i tn ey) s ue d D e f e nda nt s i n f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc our t , a s s e r t i ng c l a i m s f orvi ol a t i ons of

the L a nha m A c t , 15 U . S . C . § 1051 e ts e q. , c om m on l a w tr a de m a r k i nf r i nge m e nt , a nd defa m at i on per s e of abu si ness re pu t at i on . D ef endant s m ov ed t o d i sm i ss for l ac k of pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on, a r gui ng tha tthe i ra c t i vi t i e s di d nots a t i s f y F l or i da ’ s l onga r m s t a tut e , a nd tha tthe e xe r c i s e of j ur i s di c t i on w oul d of

f e nd due pr oc e s s . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e u n d is p u te d f a c ts a lle g e d in th e c o m p la in t, in c lu d in g D e f

e n d a n ts ’ c o n tin u e d p u b lic a tio n o f in f r in g in g m a r k s in F lo r id a o n th e ir w ebsi t es , sa t i sf

i ed F l ori da’ s l on g-arm st atut e, and thatthe exerc i se of pers on al4

ju r is d ic tio n o v e rD e f

e n d a n ts w o u ld n o t o f

f e n d d u e p r o c e s s . Se e W hi tne y I nf o. Ne two rk , I n c . v . Xc e n tr i c Ve n tu r e s , LLC , 3 4 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 4 4 - 4 6 ( M. D. F la . 2 0 0 4 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u r t d e n ie d th e m o tio n to d is m is s . I d. a t1246. T h e c a s e w a s th e n r e a s s ig n e d to a d if f e r e n t d is tr ic t ju d g e a n d D e f e n d a n ts m ov ed t o d i sm i ss un der F ed. R . C i v. P . 12 (b)( 6), as se rt i ng thatthe com pl ai ntfa i l ed to s ta te a c la im u n d e rth e L a n h a m A c t o rf o rc o m m o n la w tr a d e m a r k in f r in g e m e n t, and thatthe defamat i on cl ai m w as barr ed by the C om m un i ca t i on s D ec ency A ct ( “ C D A ” ) , 47 U . S . C . § 223 e ts e q. T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d a nd di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i ntw i thoutpr e

j udi c e . W i th r e s pe c tt o the de f a m a t i on c l a i m , the c our tf ound tha t , ba s e d on the a l l e ga t i ons of the c om pl a i nt , D e f

e nda nt s di d nota uthorthe m e s s a ge s l oc a t e d on the i rw e bs i t e , butm e r e l y publ i s he d the c om m e nt s of thi r dp a r ty c o n s u m e r s w h o f

e lt d e f r a u d e d . A s ar e s u lt, th e c o u r t e x p la in e d , D e f e n d a n ts w ere i m m u n e fro m l i ab i l i ty u n d er th e C D A b ecau se “ § 2 3 0 (c)(1 ) i m m u n i zes a s e r v ic e p r o v id e rf

r o m liab ility f

o rin f o r m a tio n d e v e lo p e d b y a th ir d p a r ty th a t is pu bl i shed on the Int ernet . ” Se e B a tz e l v . Sm ith , 33 3 F . 3d 10 18 , 10 26 -34 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ; B en E

zr a, W ei nstei n, & C o. , Inc. , 2 0 6 F .3 d 9 8 0 , 9 8 6 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Ze r an v. A m . O nl i ne, Inc. , 12 9 F . 3d 32 7, 33 1 (4th C i r. 19 97 ). Pl a i n t i f f s f i l e d a mo t i o n f

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d f o ra n e n l a r g e me n to f

t i me t o fi l e a n am ended com pl ai nt , no t i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al had b ee n5

w i thoutpr e

j udi c e . T he c our tde ni e d r e c ons i de r a t i on a s t o i t s pr e vi ous or de r , but gr a nt e d P l a i nt i f

f s t i m e t o f

i l e a n a m e nde d c om pl a i nt . T he a m e nde d c om pl a i nt c ont a i ne d s i gni f

i c a ntc ha nge s , na m i ng W hi tne y a s the s ol e pl a i nt i f f , e l i m i na t i ng the L anham A ctand com m on l aw tra dem ark i nfri ng em entcl ai m s, and add i ng new a lle g a tio n s in s u p p o r t o f th e d e f a m a tio n c la im . T h e s e a lle g a tio n s c la im e d , i nt er a lia , thatD ef

endant s t ai l ored and rew rot e c on sum ercom pl ai nt s s ub m i tt ed by thi rd pa r t i e s t o m a ke i tappe a rtha t , r e ga r dl e s s of the true na tur e of

the c om pl a i nt , the c o m p a n y c o m p la in e d o f ( i.e ., W h itn e y ) w a s “r ip p in g o f f ” c u s to m e r s . Se e , e . g. , P l . ’ s A m . C om pl . ¶¶ 38-39. T hi s t a i l or i ng a nd r e w r i t i ng a l l e ge dl yi nc l ude d the addi t i on of w ords such as “ ri po ff , ” “ di shon es t , ” a nd “ sc am . ” Se e i d. F urtherm ore, W hi tney c l ai m ed thatD ef endant s kno w i ng l y f

abri ca t ed ent i re consum er c om pl a i nt s , “ w hi c h w e r e the n a ttr i but e d t o pe opl e w i th f a l s e na m e s or

‘ anon ym ou s’ t i t l es fr om fi ct i on al l ocat i on s a roun d the U ni t ed S t at es . . . and w er e fa l se and sl anderous. ” I d. ¶ 40. D ef endant s r es po nd ed by m ov i ng t o d i sm i ss the am ended com pl ai ntfor l ac k of pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on, c l a i m i ng tha tthe gr ounds pr e vi ous l y r e l i e d upon by the di s tr i c tc our tf

orf i ndi ng j ur i s di c t i on no l onge re xi s t e d. W hi tne y ’ s de f a m a t i on cl ai m , D ef

endant s a ss ert ed, “ i s broug htby a C ol orado corpo ra t i on thatdo es bu si ness al l ov erthe coun try and d i d n otsuff erthe brun tof the harm i n F l ori da. ”Smith explained in his declaration that “[a] n IP address is a unique address that 1 identifies the computer

that the submission came from.” 6 F urtherm ore, D ef

endant s a rgued, F l ori da’ s l on g-arm st atut e w as no tsa t i sf i ed be c a us e the y ha d c om m i tt e d no t or t , f orthe C D A “ pr ohi bi t s publ i s he rl i abi l i ty f or defa m at i on w here the cl ai m i s a gai nstan i nt er ac t i ve com pu t erse rvi ce . ” I n sup po rt of thi s a r gum e nt , D e f

e nda nt s s ubm i tt e d the de c l a r a t i ons of D e f e nda ntM a ge ds on a n d B e n S m ith , w h o p r o v id e d te c h n o lo g y s e r v ic e s to D e f e n d a n t X c e n tr ic . M a ge ds on de c l a r e d tha tne i the rhe nora ny a ge ntof X c e ntr i c “ a uthor e d the st at em ent s thatar e the subj ec tof thi s l aw sui t , ” w hi l e S m i th d ec l ar ed thatthe IP a d d r e s s e s o f

th o s e c o m p u te r s th a t p o s te d th e c o m p la in ts o rr e b u tta ls a t is s u e d id 1 no tm at ch the IP addres s of a ny com pu t erused by X ce ntri c or i t s a gent s. W hi tney r e s p o n d e d b y a r g u in g , in te ra lia , th a t M a g e d s o n ’s d e c la r a tio n w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to co n tro v er t all ju risd icti o n al alleg atio n s o f th e a m en d ed co m p lain t, an d th at S m ith ’s d e c la r a tio n r e a c h e d th e m e r its o f W h itn e y ’s c la im , th e r e b y “m a k in g it i nappr opr i a t e on a m ot i on t o di s m i s s unde rR ul e 12( b) ( 2) , a nd m or e s ui t e d t o a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . . . .” T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d tha tW hi tne y ha d nots a t i s f i e d the r e qui r e m e nt s of F l ori da’ s l on g-arm st atut e, and g ra nt ed the m ot i on t o d i sm i ss on thatbasi s. G i ven th e p ro t ect i o n affo rd ed D efen d an t s u n d er th e C D A , th e co u rtst at ed , “ [W h i tn ey’ s] ne w a l l e ga t i ons tha tD e f e nda nt s w e r e the author s of s om e of the s t a t e m e nt s on7

thei r w ebsi t e a re es se nt i al t o the survi val of i t s a rgum enti n sup po rtof pers on al j ur i s di c t i on. ” I f

D e f e nda nt s di d not“ a uthor ” the s t a t e m e nt s , the c our tr e a s one d, “th e n th e y a r e im m u n e u n d e rth e [ C D A ], d id n o t c o m m it a to r tio u s a c t in th e s ta te of F l ori da, and the C ou rtl ac ks pers on al j uri sdi ct i on ov erthem . ” T he courtagre ed tha tthe a l l e ga t i ons of

W hi tne y ’ s a m e nde d c om pl a i ntm a de a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e f

or j uri sdi ct i on , bu tfoun d thatD ef endant s’ decl ar at i on s–part i cul ar l y thatof B en S m i th–c a us e d the bur de n t o s hi f tba c k t o W hi tne y t o pr ove j ur i s di c t i on by m e a ns o f an affi d av i to r o th er sw o rn st at em en t . W h i tn ey h ad p ro d u ced n o su ch m at eri al s, the courtexpl ai ned, and there fore fa i l ed t o carry i t s burden. H avi ng concl ud ed that W hi tney di d n otsa t i sf

y the re qu i re m ent s of F l ori da’ s l on g-arm st atut e, the court de c l i ne d t o pe r f

or m a due pr oc e s s a na l y s i s a nd di s m i s s e d the a m e nde d c om pl a i nt w ith p r e ju d ic e . W h itn e y n o w ap p e a ls th a t d is m is s a l.

I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e v ie w a d is m is s a l f o rla c k o f

p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . A l ex an der Pr o u d f o o t Co . Wo r ld

He a dq u a r t e rs L. P. v. T ha ye r , 87 7 F . 2d 91 2, 91 6 (11 th C i r. 1989) . “ W he n a di s tr i c tc our tdoe s notc onduc ta di s c r e t i ona ry e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng o n a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s f o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n , th e p l a i n t i f f mu s te s t ab l i s h a p r i ma fa ci e c as e of per sonal j uri sdi ct i on ov era non re si dentdefe nd ant . ” M a da r a v . H

a ll , 916 F . 2d 1510, 1514 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . “ A pr i m a f a c i e c a s e i s e s t abl i s he d i f the8

pl ai nt i ff pres ent s e no ug h evi dence t o w i thst and a m ot i on for adi re ct ed verdi ct . ” I d .

“ [ W e ] m us tc ons true the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true , t o the e xt e nt they a re un controvert ed by defendant ’ s a ff i davi t s or deposi t i on t es t i m on y. ” Mo r r is v. SS E, Inc. , 843 F . 2d 489, 492 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . I f a pl a i nt i f

f pl e a ds s uf

f i c i e nt m at er i al fa ct s t o est abl i sh a bas i s f or pers on al j uri sdi ct i on and a defendantthen subm i t s a ff

i davi t s c on trovert i ng tho se al l egat i on s, “ the bu rden tr a d itio n a lly s h if ts b ack t o th e p l ai n t i ff t o p ro d u ce ev i d en ce su p p o rt i n g j u ri sd i ct i o n [, ] u n l ess th o se a f f id a v its c o n ta in o n ly c o n c lu s o ry a s s e r tio n s th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is n o t s u b

je c t to j uri sdi ct i on . ” Me i e rex r e l . Me i e rv . Sun I nt ’ l H ote l s , L td. , 288 F . 3d 1264, 1269 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ; see Fu tu re T ech . T o da y, In c. v. O S

F H ea l th ca re S

ys. , 218 F . 3d 1247, 1249 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W he n the pl a i nt i f f’ s c om pl a i nta nd s u p p o r tin g e v id e n c e c o n f lic t w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a f

f id a v its , w e m u s t c o n s tru e a ll r e a s o n ab le in f

e r e n c e s in f

a v o ro f th e p la in tif

f . Mei er , 2 8 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 9 ; M a da ra , 916 F . 2d a t1514. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he det erm i nat i on of w hether acourthas per sonal j uri sdi ct i on ov era gi ven d e f e n d a n t in v o lv e s a tw o - p a r t in q u iry . M ut . Serv . Ins. C o. v. Fri t Indu s. , Inc. , 358 F . 3d 1312, 1319 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . F i r s t , the c our tde t e r m i ne s “ w he the rtheTh estatut estate s in re leva nt p art : 2 (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or re sident of this state, who per sonally or through a n ag e nt doe s any of the a c ts en umerate d in this sub se c tio n th e reby su bmits himself o r h er s el f and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state f or any causeof ac tion ari singfrom t

hedo ingof

any of thefo llo winga c ts:

. . . (b) Committi nga tortious act within this state. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1) (b). 9 exer ci se of j uri sdi ct i on i s app ropri at e und erthe forum st at e’ s l on g-arm st atut e. ” I d. S e c ond, the c our tm us te xa m i ne w he the rthe e xe r c i s e of pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on w ou l d v i ol at e the F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent ’ s D ue P roce ss C l ause , “ w hi ch re qu i re s tha tthe de f

e nda ntha ve m i ni m um c ont a c t s w i th the f orum s t a t e a nd tha tthe e xe r c i s e of

j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe de f e nda ntdoe s notof

f e nd tr a di t i ona l not i ons of fa i r pl ay and sub st ant i al j ust i ce . ” I d . ( in te rn a l q u o te s o m itte d ) . H e r e , th e s o le is s u e r a is e d o n ap p e a l is w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in det erm i ni ng thatW hi tney f ai l ed t o sat i sf

y the re qu i re m ent s of F l ori da’ s l on g-arm st atut e. T he on l y port i on of the l on g-arm st atut e upo n w hi ch W hi tney r el i ed w as F l a. S t at . § 4 8. 19 3(1)(b), w hi ch “ prov i des f or the as se rt i on of j uri sdi ct i on ov eran ou t -of- st at e def

endantw ho com m i t s at ort i ou s a cti n F l ori da. ” H ori zon A gg re ss i ve Gr o wth , L. P. v . Ro th s t e i n - Ka s s , P. A. , 42 1 F . 3d 11 62 , 11 68 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e 2 m ustconstrue the prov i si on s of the l on g-arm st atut e a s the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtThe CDA de fines the ter m “interactive computer

service ” as “ any

information servic e, 3 system, or ac cess softwa

re provider that provide s or ena bles computer acce ss by

multipl e user s to a computer

server, includingspecific ally a ser vice or system that provides ac cess to the Internet and such systems operated or ser vices off ere d by libraries or

educational insti tutions.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) . Whitney does not dispute on appeal that Defendants Xcentric or badbusinessbure au.orgqualified a s a “provider or user of a n interac tive computer service ” under § 230(c) (1). Cf. Batzel , 333 F.3d at 1030 (“There is . . . no nee d hereto decide whether a listserv or website itself fits the broad statutory definition of ‘interactive computer service ,’ bec ause the languag e of § 230( c)( 1) conf ers immunity

not just on ‘providers’ of such ser vices, but also on ‘user s’ of such service s.”). Whitney does contend, however, that De fenda nt Mag edson could not have qualified for CDA immunity beca use he “ submitt ed no evidence to e stablish hims elf a s an ‘interactive computer

service .’” A lthough weneed not address this argument beca use Whitney raises it for

the first time in its reply

brief, see Bauk

night v. Monroe County, Fla. , 446 F.3d 1327, 1329 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006), we notethat § 230(c) (1) require s only that Mag edson havebeen a 10 w o u ld . I d. a t1166- 67. “ ‘ [ C ] om m i tt i ng a t or t i ous a c t ’ i n F l or i da unde rs e c t i on 48 . 19 3(1)(b) can o cc ur throu gh the no n-re si dentdefe nd ant ’ s t el epho ni c, el ec troni c, orw r i tt e n c om m uni c a t i ons i nt o F l or i da , ” s o l ong a s the pl a i nt i f f’ s c a us e of

a c t i on a r is e s f r o m th e c o m m u n ic a tio n s . W e n d t v . H o r o w itz , 82 2 S o. 2d 12 52 , 12 60 (F l a. 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g F la . S ta t. § 4 8 .1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d

– a n d D e f

e n d a n ts d o n o t d is p u te o n ap p e a l– th a t th e a lle g a tio n s o f W h itn e y ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, if t a ke n a s true , s a t i s f

i e d the r e qui r e m e nt s of

§ 48. 193( 1) ( b) a s t o e a c h of the D e f e n d a n ts . T h is w a s s o , th e c o u r t e x p la in e d , b e c a u s e th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t, unl i ke the or i gi na l c om pl a i nt , a l l e ge d tha tD e f e nda nt s “ w e r e the a uthor s of s om e of th e s ta te m e n ts o n th e irw e b s ite ,” n o t m e r e ly p u b lis h e r s o f th ir d - p a r ty s ta te m e n ts . U nde rthe C D A , “ [ n] o pr ovi de rorus e rof a n i nt e r a c t i ve c om put e rs e r vi c e s ha l l be treat ed as th e p u b l i sh er o r sp eak er o f an y i n fo rm at i o n p ro v i d ed b y an other i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e n tp r o v i d e r . ” 4 7 U. S . C . § 2 3 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . “ No 3“provider or user” of an interactive computer

service , not the serviceitself. 11 c a us e of a c t i on m a y be br oughta nd no l i abi l i ty m a y be i m pos e d unde ra ny S t a t e or l ocal l aw thati s i ncon si st entw i th thi s s ec t i on . ” I d . § 230( e ) ( 3) . A n “ i nf or m a t i on c o n te n t p r o v id e r ” is “a n y p e r s o n o re n tity th a t is r e s p o n s ib le , in w h o le o rin p a r t, f orthe c r e a t i on orde ve l opm e ntof i nf or m a t i on pr ovi de d thr ough the I nt e rne tor any other i nt er ac t i ve com pu t erse rvi ce . ” I d. § 2 30 (f

)( 3). B y a l l egi ng that D ef endant s autho re d som e of the st at em ent s post ed on the w ebsi t e, W hi tney i ndi c a t e d tha tD e f

e nda nt s w e r e the m s e l ve s a n “ i nf or m a t i on c ont e ntpr ovi de r ” a nd thus notne c e s s a r i l y i m m une unde rthe C D A . T he c our tf ur the rde t e r m i ne d, ho w ever , thatthe S m i th and M agedson d ec l ar at i on s c on trovert ed these cr i t i ca l a lle g a tio n s ab o u t a u th o r s h ip , a n d th e r e b y s h if te d th e b u r d e n b a c k to W h itn e y “to subst ant i at e [ i t s] j uri sdi ct i on al al l egat i on s by a ff i davi t s or other c om pet entproo f, and n otm er el y [ t o] re i t er at e the fa ctual al l egat i on s i n the com pl ai nt . ” Futur e T e c h. T oday , 21 8 F . 3d at12 49 (i nt ernal qu ot es om i tt ed). In prod uci ng no such evi dence, the courthel d, W hi tney f ai l ed t o carry thi s burden and D ef endant s w er e there fore e n title d to d is m is s a l. A de f e nda nt ’ s f

i l i ng of a n a f f i da vi tc ont e s t i ng j ur i s di c t i ona l a l l e ga t i ons shi ft s the bu rden back t o the pl ai nt i ff (t o sup po rttho se al l egat i on s w i th evi dence) o n ly w h e n th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a f

f id a v it is le g a lly s u f

f ic ie n t to e f

f e c t th e s h if

t. See12

A c quadr o v . B e r

ge r on , 8 5 1 S o . 2 d 6 6 5 , 6 7 1 ( F la . 2 0 0 3 ) ; H ori zon A gg re ss i ve G r o w th , 421 F . 3d a t1168- 69. T he m e r e a s s e r t i on of a l e ga l c onc l us i on, f

or e x a m p le , is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s h if

t th e b u r d e n b a c k to th e p la in tif f . Se e , e . g. , A cq u a dro , 8 5 1 S o . 2 d a t 6 7 2 ( e x p la in in g th a t d e f e n d a n t’s s ta te m e n t in h e ra f f id a v it tha ts he “ di d notm a ke de f a m a t ory s t a t e m e nt s ” aboutthe pl a i nt i f f w a s i ns uf

f i c i e nt to s h if t th e b u r d e n b a c k to p la in tif f ) ; P os ne rv . Es s ex I

ns . C o. , 178 F . 3d 1209, 1215 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ) ( expl ai ni ng thatst at em ent s w hi ch, tho ug h p re se nt ed i n the f or m of f a c tua l de c l a r a t i ons , a r e i n s ubs t a nc e l e ga l c onc l us i ons do not

“ tr i gge ra duty f

orP l a i nt i f

f s t o r e s pond w i th e vi de nc e of the i row n s uppor t i ng j uri sdi ct i on ”) . O n app ea l , W hi tney c on t ends thatD ef endant s’ decl ar at i on s w er e i nsuffi ci entt o shi ftthe bu rden of proo f bec ause tho se decl ar at i on s c on t ai ned concl usory deni al s a nd fa i l ed t o con t es tal l re l evantal l egat i on s of the am ended c om pl a i nt . D e f

e nda nt s m a i nt a i n tha tthe de c l a r a t i ons a de qua t e l y di s put e d a ny c la im th a t th e y “a u th o r e d ” th e c o m p la in ts o rr e b u tta ls ab o u t W h itn e y o n th e ir w ebsi t e. A s W hi tney produ ce d n o evi dence t o the contra ry , D ef endant s a rgue, the y w e r e c l e a r l y e nt i t l e d t o C D A i m m uni ty a nd thus c om m i tt e d no t or tf or pu rposes of § 4 8. 19 3(1)(b). H avi ng re vi ew ed the decl ar at i on s, w e di sa gree that they w er e a dequ at e t o shi ftthe bu rden back t o W hi tney. T hu s, i ti s notcl ea r that D efen d an t s w ere en t i t l ed t o C D A i m m u n i ty.Mag edson also conc eded that he “do[es] not personally review all of the posting s that 4 aremade on Rip-off

Report bef

ore they areposted.” 13 M a g e d s o n s ta te s th a t a g e n ts o f X c e n tr ic “d o n o t c h o o s e w h ic h s to r ie s to p o st , ” th atth ey “ rev i ew th e rep o rt s b efo re p o st i n g so l el y t o red actp ro fan i ty, o b s c e n ity a n d p e r s o n a l c o n ta c t in f o r m a tio n ,” a n d th a t th e y “a r e in s tru c te d n e v e rto add con t entt o a re po rt . ” W hi l e these st at em ent s m ay desc ri be X ce ntri c’ s r evi ew pr a c t i c e s a nd w ha ti t s a ge nt s a r e ge ne r a l l y i ns truc t e d t o do, the s t a t e m e nt s m a ke no r e pr e s e nt a t i on aboutw ha ta c tua l l y oc c urr e d w i th r e s pe c tt o the w e bs i t e pos t i ngs aboutW hi tne y . M a ge ds on a l s o de c l a r e s s um m a r i l y tha tne i the rhe nora ny a ge nt of X c e ntr i c “ a uthor e d the s t a t e m e nt s tha ta r e the s ubj e c tof thi s l a w s ui t , ” buthe d o e s n o t e x p la in h o w h e h a s k n o w le d g e a s to th e a c tio n s o f X c e n tr ic ’s a g e n ts . E ven i f thi s c on cl usory deni al ca n b e s ai d t o chal l enge W hi tney’ s a l l egat i on that D e f e n d a n ts f ab r ic a te d s o m e o f

th e c o n s u m e rc o m p la in ts p o s te d o n th e irw e b s ite , it d o e s n o t c o n tr o v e r t W h itn e y ’s a lle g a tio n s th a t D e f e n d a n ts ta ilo r e d c o m p la in ts s ubm i tt e d by othe ri ndi vi dua l s , a ddi ng w or ds s uc h a s “ r i pof f , ” “ di s hone s t , ” or

“ s c a m . ” I nde e d, M a ge ds on’ s ow n r e pr e s e nt a t i on aboutX c e ntr i c ’ s pol i c y r e ga r di ng re dact i on s i m pl i es thatX ce ntri c’ s a gent s had the po w ert o edi tconsum er c om pl a i nt s be f

or e the y w e r e pos t e d. 4 D ef endant s c on t end thatM agedson’ s a ss ert i on s abo utautho rs hi p are supp ort ed by the S m i th d ec l ar at i on , because S m i th fou nd thatno ne of the capturedWhitney sug g ests that Xcentric’s ag ents might have used non- work c omputers and 5 assumed name s as a subterfug e for submitt ing f

abric ated c omplaints, such as by logging on a computer at an internet caf e under an assumed na

me. Whitney

did not alleg e this in its amended complaint, however, and it is not a def ect in De fenda

nts’ evidenc e, but rather mere speculation on the par t of Whitney

that we g ive little weight. 14 I P a ddr e s s e s of

c om put e r s f

r om w hi c h r e por t s w e r e pos t e d aboutW hi tne y on D e f e nda nt s ’ w e bs i t e m a t c he d the I P a ddr e s s of “ a ny c om put e rus e d by X c e ntr i c or i t s a gent s . . . . ” S m i th further s t at es thathe di d n otre cogn i ze the cont ac t in f o r m a tio n p r o v id e d b y a n y o f th e p e r s o n s w h o s u b m itte d c o n s u m e rc o m p la in ts abou tW hi tney a s bel on gi ng t o agent s of X ce ntri c. T he i m pl i ca t i on i s that D ef endant s di d n otfabri ca t e a nd po stany of the consum ercom pl ai nt s a ti ss ue, be c a us e i f

the y ha d done s o the I P a ddr e s s e s of the i rc om put e r s w oul d ha ve appeare d d uri ng S m i th’ s e xam i nat i on , or he w ou l d h ave r ec og ni ze d thei r c on t ac t i nform at i on . H ow ever , S m i th adm i t s thathe w as un abl e t o o bt ai n IP addres se s c orr e s pondi ng t o thr e e of the c ons um e rc om pl a i nt s a ti s s ue . F ur the r m or e , i ti s not c l e a rtha tthe I P a ddr e s s e s of c om put e r s us e d by X c e ntr i c ’ s a ge nt s w oul d ha ve ev en ap p eared d u ri n g S m i th ’ s search i f th o se co m p u t ers w ere u sed m erel y t o rev i se consum ercom pl ai nt s s ub m i tt ed by others , ra ther than t o sub m i ta f abri ca t ed c o m p la in t. 5 A s i nd i ca t ed abov e, the C D A defi nes a n “ i nform at i on cont entprov i der” as

“ any per son o r e nt i ty thati s r es po nsi bl e, i n w ho l e o r i n p a rt , f orthe c r e a t i on or15

de ve l opm e ntof

i nf or m a t i on pr ovi de d thr ough the I nt e rne tora ny othe ri nt e r a c t i ve c om put e rs e r vi c e . ” 47 U . S . C . § 230( f ) ( 3) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . F orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d, D e f

e nda nt s ’ de c l a r a t i ons do nota de qua t e l y r e butthe a l l e ga t i ons of the a m e nde d c om pl a i nti ns of a ra s i tpl e a ds D e f

e nda nt s ’ i nvol ve m e nti n c r e a t i ng or d e v e lo p in g th e a lle g e d d e f a m a to ry c o n te n t o f

c o n s u m e rc o m p la in ts p o s te d o n th e ir w e b s ite . T h u s , w h e th e rD e f e n d a n ts w e r e e n title d to C D A im m u n ity r e m a in e d in q u e s tio n , a s d id th e is s u e o f w h e th e rth e irc o n d u c t w a s to r tio u s . C f . H y C i te C or

p. v . b a db u s i n e s s b u r e a u . c o m , L. L. C. , 418 F . S upp. 2d 1142, 1148- 49 ( D . A r i z . 2005) (d ecl i n i n g t o g ran td efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss b ased o n C D A i m m u n i ty b ecau se pl ai nt i ff s a l l eged thatdefe nd ant s a dd ed edi t ori al com m ent s, t i t l es , and o ri gi nal cont entt o thi rd-party c om pl ai nt s post ed on defe nd ant s’ w ebsi t e) . T he di stri ct c our tthe r e f

or e e rr e d w he n i ts hi f

t e d the bur de n of

pr oof t o W hi tne y ba s e d on D e f e nda nt s ’ de c l a r a t i ons a nd the n gr a nt e d D e f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s ba s e d on W hi tne y ’ s f

a i l ur e t o s ubs t a nt i a t e i t s a l l e ga t i ons w i th e vi de nc e . T a ki ng the a l l e ga t i ons of

the a m e nde d c om pl a i nta s true t o the e xt e ntthe y w e r e not controvert ed by D ef

endant s’ decl ar at i on s, and con strui ng al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s in f a v o ro f W h itn e y , see M

a da ra , 91 6 F . 2d at15 14 , w e c on cl ud e thatW hi tney w ou l d h ave s urvi ved a m ot i on for di re ct ed verdi cton w hether i tsa t i sf i ed § 4 8 .1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) o f

F lo r id a ’s lo n g - a r m s ta tu te . See Carruthers v. B SA A dver . , Inc. ,16

3 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( “A d ir e c te d v e r d ic t is o n ly pr ope rw he n the f

a c t s a nd i nf

e r e nc e s s o ove rw he l m i ngl y f a vorthe ve r di c ttha tno r e a s onabl e j ur orc oul d r e a c h a c ontr a ry de c i s i on. ” ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A s the di stri ctcourtdecl i ned t o add re ss w hether the exerc i se of pers on al j uri sdi ct i on ov er D e f e n d a n ts w o u ld v io la te d u e p r o c e s s ( a n is s u e n o t b r ie f e d o n ap p e a l) , w e v a c a te th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u d g m en tan d rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. I V . CONCL US I ON T he di stri ctcourterre d i n con cl ud i ng thatW hi tney f ai l ed t o sat i sf

y § 48. 193( 1) ( b) of

F l or i da ’ s l ong- a r m s t a tut e w i th r e s pe c tt o D e f e nda nt s , a nd thus erre d i n d i sm i ss i ng the am ended com pl ai ntfor l ac k o f per sonal j uri sdi ct i on on that b a s is . W h e th e rth e e x e r c is e o f p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rD e f e n d a n ts w o u ld v io la te due pr oc e s s , how e ve r , i s y e tt o be r e s ol ve d. A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e the j udgm e nt o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d r e m a n d th e c a s e f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith thi s opi ni on. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.