Opinion ID: 1031139
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fabrication of Eight Posts

Text: Even if the facts pled in the Development Paragraph are insufficient for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes, Nemet separately argues that as to eight of the twenty posts, the amended complaint pled other facts which show Consumeraffairs.com is an information content provider. Thus, Nemet argues the motion to dismiss should not have been granted as to these eight posts. In the other twelve posts, Nemet agreed that it could identify from its business records the customer making the posted complaint and the vehicle at issue. However, as to the eight posts, Nemet pled as to each that [b]ased upon the information provided in the post, [Nemet] could not determine which customer, if any, this post pertained to. See, e.g., J.A. at 70. Nemet then pled the following (the Fabrication Paragraph) as to each of the eight posts: Because Plaintiffs cannot confirm that the [customer] complaint . . . was even created by a Nemet Motors Customer based on the date, model of car, and first name, Plaintiffs believe that the complaint . . . was fabricated by the Defendant for the purpose of attracting other consumer complaints. By authoring the complaint . . . the Defendant was therefore responsible for the substance and content of the complaint. [6] See, e.g., J.A. at 68. Taking the Fabrication Paragraph as pled, it is important to note exactly what facts Nemet claims show Consumeraffairs.com was the actual author of the eight posts. Nemet's sole factual basis for the claim that Consumer affairs.com is the author, and thus an information content provider not entitled to CDA immunity, is that Nemet cannot find the customer in its records based on the information in the post. Because Nemet was unable to identify the authors of these comments based on the date, model of car, and first name recorded online, Nemet alleges that these comments were fabricated by Consumeraffairs.com for the purpose of attracting other consumer complaints. Id. But this is pure speculation and a conclusory allegation of an element of the immunity claim (creation . . . of information). 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). Nemet has not pled that Consumeraffairs.com created the allegedly defamatory eight posts based on any tangible fact, but solely because it (Nemet) can't find a similar name or vehicle of the time period in Nemet's business records. Of course, the post could be anonymous, falsified by the consumer, or simply missed by Nemet. There is nothing but Nemet's speculation which pleads Consumeraffairs.com's role as an actual author in the Fabrication Paragraph. On appeal, Nemet argues that its supporting allegations nonetheless show the Fabrication Paragraph pleads adequate facts that Consumeraffairs.com is the author of the eight posts, but each is meritless. These allegations include (1) that Nemet has an excellent professional reputation, (2) none of the consumer complaints at issue have been reported to or acted upon by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, (3) Consumeraffairs.com's sole source of income is advertising and this advertising is tied to its webpage content, and (4) some of the posts on Consumeraffairs.com's website appeared online after their listed creation date. Nemet's allegations in this regard do not allow us to draw any reasonable inferences that would aid the sufficiency of its amended complaint. That Nemet may have an overall excellent professional reputation, earned in part from a paucity of complaints reported to New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs, does not allow us to reasonably infer that the particular instances of consumer dissatisfaction alleged on Consumeraffairs.com's website are false. Furthermore, Nemet's allegations in regard to the source of Consumeraffairs.com's revenue stream are irrelevant, as we have already established that Consumer affairs.com's development of class-action lawsuits does not render it an information content provider with respect to the allegedly defamatory content of the posts at issue. Finally, the fact that some of these comments appeared on Consumeraffairs.com's website after their listed creation date does not reasonably suggest that they were fabricated by Consumeraffairs.com. Any number of reasons could cause such a delay, including Consumeraffairs.com's review for inappropriate content. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951. We are thus left with bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement, which are not entitled to an assumption of truth. [7] Id. at 1949. Such conclusory statements are insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate Nemet's entitlement to relief. See id. As recently emphasized by the Supreme Court, Rule 8 requires more than conclusions to unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff. Id. at 1950. Viewed in the correct factual context, id. at 1954, Nemet's stark allegations are nothing more than a formulaic recitation of one of the elements of its claims. Id. at 1951. A plaintiff must offer more than [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action and conclusory statements, however, to show its entitlement to relief. Id. at 1949. Viewed in their best light, Nemet's well-pled allegations allow us to infer no more than the mere possibility that Consumeraffairs.com was responsible for the creation or development of the allegedly defamatory content at issue. Id. at 1950. Nemet has thus failed to nudge its claims that Consumeraffairs.com is an information content provider for any of the twenty posts across the line from the conceivable to plausible. Id. at 1952. As a result, Consumeraffairs.com is entitled to § 230 immunity and the district court did not err by granting the motion to dismiss.