Opinion ID: 172353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Treatment as a Publisher or Speaker

Text: Turning to the second requirement for CDA immunity, we refrain from adopting the concurrence's view that the CDA does not protect Accusearch because Accusearch's liability under the FTCA is not based on its being a publisher or speaker. According to the concurrence, the FTC sought and ultimately held Accusearch liable for its conduct rather than for the content of the information it was offering on the Abika.com website. Op., (Tymkovich, J., concurring) at 2. It appears to us, however, that Accusearch would not have violated the FTCA had it not published the confidential telephone information that it had improperly acquired. And that publication was on its website. It would seem to be irrelevant that Accusearch could have operated the same business model without use of the Internet. The concurrence thoughtfully raises an interesting point, but, as with the first requirement for CDA immunity, we choose not to resolve the immunity issue on this ground.