Opinion ID: 2197137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Communications Decency Act

Text: The parties have disagreed over the applicability of the Communications Decency Act (47 USC § 230) (CDA) and the merits of Zeran v America Online (129 F3d 327 [4th Cir 1997], cert denied 524 US 937). Prodigy has contended that the CDA should govern this case by retroactive application. It asks us to interpret the CDA to render an ISP unconditionally free from notice-based liability, insofar as the statute has been interpreted as granting Federal immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functionssuch as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content ( see, Zeran v America Online, 129 F3d, at 330, supra ). At this point we decline the invitation to come down on either side of this debate. [5] This case does not call for it. We recognize of course that parties to a lawsuit, and surely others interested in the field, will look to decisions for points of guidance. For every new rule that a court sets down doubts are minimized, and practitioners are able to give counsel based on settled doctrine, rather than on open questions. While many decisions serve to establish rules that advance predictability, courts cannot go beyond the issues necessary to decide the case at hand. An ambition of that sort would entail something very much like drafting advisory opinions. Misdirected or misapplied, they can create the very kind of uncertainty, or confusion, that purposeful decisional law seeks to eliminate. These general observations apply even more compellingly when dealing with Internet law. Given the extraordinarily rapid growth of this technology and its developments, it is plainly unwise to lurch prematurely into emerging issues, given a record that does not at all lend itself to their determination. We have considered Lunney's remaining causes of action against Prodigy and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Order affirmed, with costs.