Source: http://cyberinternetlawyer.com/tag/cyber-libel/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:33:49+00:00

Document:
Roomates.com Case and its interpretation of the Communications Decency Act -Was this a victory against Internet defamation and other online misconduct?
Milan D. Smith, Jr. and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.
230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”).
1183 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007).
2For unknown reasons, the company goes by the singular name “Roommate.
com, LLC” but pluralizes its website’s URL, www.roommates.com.
revenue from advertisers and subscribers.
a process that requires them to answer a series of questions.
is immune under section 230 of the CDA, 47 U.S.C.
classifications. Cal. Gov. Code § 12955.
5The Supreme Court held some portions of the CDA to be unconstitutional.
this case are still in force.
computer access by multiple users to a computer server.” 47 U.S.C.
service” under the CDA), aff’d, 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).
Today, the most common interactive computer services are websites.
immunity when quoting and analyzing the statutory text.
or development of” the offending content. Id.
it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content.
financial message boards.10 See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v.
8See, e.g., Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1262-63 (N.D.
fake profiles on its own dating website).
seemed like a lot at the time.
allows users to read and reply to messages posted by others.
1995 WL 323710 at *3.
actions to restrict . . . access to objectionable online material.
restricted access to objectionable material.” H.R. Rep. No.
11CompuServe was a competing online service provider of the day.
slip op. at 6 (7th Cir. Mar. 14, 2008) (quoting Doe v.
GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655, 659-60 (7th Cir. 2003)).
the Fair Housing Act and California law.
the Fair Housing Act and the analogous California law.
and designed its website registration process around them.
reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 207-08.
limitation, or discrimination” on the basis of a protected category.
or oral inquiry concerning the” protected status of a housing seeker.
Cal. Gov. Code § 12955(b).
answer them as a condition of using its services.
44 F.3d 553, 557 (7th Cir. 1995).
world counterparts, which must comply with laws of general applicability.
unlawfully “cause[s]” subscribers to make a “statement . . .
subscribers to state discriminatory preferences. See Johnson v.
Barker, 799 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
among options provided by the website.
along with other information, on the subscriber’s profile page.
options and providing their own answers. Dissent at 3485-88.
helping “develop” at least “in part” the information in the profiles.
18See also discussion of Batzel pp. 3466-67 infra.
]” the information “in whole or in part.” See 47 U.S.C.
for a very good reason: Unlawful questions solicit (a.k.a.
except the “Additional Comments” portion, discussed below, see pp.
information that other clients can use to discriminate unlawfully.
page is a collaborative effort between Roommate and the subscriber.
who has access to housing.
applicant or individual offering housing matching their preferences.
F.2d 1119, 1120-21 (7th Cir. 1974).
wanted to make it lawful to profit from it online.
characteristics to find housing—something the law prohibits.
searches. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).
whole or in part.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) (emphasis added).
materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct.
as plain as the dissent would have it. Dissent at 3491-93.
ones it bypasses do not.
Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 197 (1985).
%28web%29&oldid=188219503 (last visited Mar. 19, 2008).
the activities Roommate engages in.
thus there can be no claim based solely on the content of these questions.
discrimination both possible and respectable.
housing preferences that are alleged to be illegal.
as we interpret the term. See pp. 3461-64 supra.
without endorsing Batzel’s analysis on this point.
of that issue. Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1035.
as the difference is one of method or degree, not substance.”).
is a question we leave to the district court.
Cir. 2003), as we used language there that was unduly broad.
suggested that she was looking for an unconventional liaison.
in part.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).
user, without prompting or help from the website operator.
another information content provider. 339 F.3d at 1125.
content and makes aggressive use of it in conducting its business.
such a broad reading would sap section 230 of all meaning.
sought to immunize by passing the section. See pp. 3453-55 supra.
did not design its system around the dissemination of unlawful content.
In Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v.
particular listing or express a preference for discrimination . . . .” Slip op.
the Seventh Circuit explained the limited scope of section 230(c) immunity.
actually in line with our own.
wishes. Such essays are visible only to paying subscribers.
its link structure.” Id. at 420.
through providing “chat rooms” for general use.
And, finally, in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.
generic message board for general discussions.
entirely from subscribers and is passively displayed by Roommate.
provide immunity. See pp. 3453-3455 supra.
selection, the outcome would not change. See Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031.
because it would defeat the purpose of section 230. See pp. 3461-64 supra.
fight costly and protracted legal battles.
conduct to the law than they did yesterday.
every single message posted by third parties on their website.
However, a larger point remains about the scope of immunity provisions.
of their arguments before us so their case is perforce not frivolous.
in part and REMANDED. NO COSTS.
archives/web_server_survey.html (last visited Mar. 14, 2008).
2Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 566 (2002).
has dramatically altered the landscape of Internet liability.
and wondering where immunity ends and liability begins.
information provided by third parties. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
3Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir.
and principles developed from traditional modes of communication.
what Congress intended by enacting the CDA.
Developing Law of the Internet, 416 PLI/Pat 9, 15 (Sept. 1995).
should not be burdened with the traditional legal framework.
illegal, it could not be legal in cyberspace).
party” does not “escape accountability”).
that the question of discrimination has not yet been litigated.
with the question of webhost immunity is to rewrite the statute.
unlawful answers.” Maj. Op. at 3459.
profit from it online.” Id. at 3461.
function is alleged to do here.” Id.
discriminatory preferences.” Id. at 3470.
Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y.
Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., No. 07-1101, slip op.
“Section 230(c)(1) is general[,]” despite its “genesis” in Prodigy).
originating with a third-party user of the service.”).
by providing differential treatment to interactive service providers.
Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330; see also Whitney Info. Network, Inc.
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11632 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2008); Doe v.
v. eBay, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 703, 717-18 (Cal. Ct. App.
1123 (discussing § 230(b)(1), (2)).
and whether children or pets are present.
and may upload images of the room or residence.
choice — in expressing preferences as to roommate characteristics.
and transmitting of third-party information.
than that performed by a generic search engine.
creator of that information; no “development” has occurred.
and springs forth untethered to anything in the statute.
whether Roommate may be liable for violations of the FHA.
of substantive liability may be reached in the first place.
does the prompt about geography. And therein lies the rub.
Millions of websites use prompts and drop-down menus.
could be responsible in part for developing content.
than Google, Yahoo!, or other search engines.
“development,” these search engines are equivalent to Roommate.
an area where Congress expected predictability.
publish it did not constitute “development.” Id.
the “ ‘plain meaning’ of a term undefined by a statute”).
and further expose the folly of the majority’s ungrounded definition.
and filtering technologies . . .” § 230(b)(1), (4) (emphasis added).
[the] alleged unlawfulness” of content. See Maj. Op. at 3462.
on the freedom of Internet speech.”).
dangerous precedent for analyzing future Internet cases.
or encouragement of information provided by users.
Ventures, LLC, No. 2:04-cv-47-FtM-34SPC, 2008 U.S. Dist.
content providers of the reports”); Global Royalties, Ltd.
v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, No. 07-956-PHX-FJM, 2007 U.S.
to put on its site.”).
the consideration of the webhost’s prompting or solicitation.
defined to include an “access software provider.” § 230(f)(2).
and “reorganize” content. § 230(f)(4)(A)-(C).
ended Comments section contains only third-party content.
“discriminatory filtering process.” Id. at 3465.
development” of information. § 230(f)(4)(A)-(C).
CDA. We got it right in Carafano, that “[u]nder § 230(c) . . .
10, Inc. v. CCBILL LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1118 (9th Cir.
the FHA and a host of other federal statutes from its scope.
legislative intent.”) (citation omitted); see also Craigslist, No.
the law to permit this unfettered development of the Internet.
uniformly accorded interactive webhosts under § 230(c).
to those entities covered by H.R. 3833.
the core of their services.
policeman for the laws of the fifty states and the federal system.
the bare inquiry itself is unlawful.
14It is no surprise that there are countless specialized roommate sites.
This entry was posted in Various Internet Defamation Laws and tagged Cyber Defamation Attorney, Cyber Libel, Internet Defamation Lawyer, Internet Law, Online Slander, Roommate.com case on May 21, 2010 by admin.

References: § 12955
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 12955
 v.

 § 230
 § 230
 § 230
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 230
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 230
 § 230

v. 
 § 230
 § 230
 § 230
 § 230
 v. 
 § 230