Section 230 – Page 5 – internetcases

November 9, 2017 Section 230

Anti-malware provider immune under CDA for calling competitor’s product a security threat

kills_bugs

Plaintiff anti-malware software provider sued defendant – who also provides software that protects internet users from malware, adware etc. – bringing claims for false advertising under the Section 43(a) of Lanham Act, as well as other business torts. Plaintiff claimed that defendant wrongfully revised its software’s criteria to identify plaintiff’s software as a security threat when, according to plaintiff, its software is “legitimate” and posed no threat to users’ computers.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It argued that the provisions of the Communications Decency Act at Section 230(c)(2) immunized it from plaintiff’s claims.

Section 230(c)(2) reads as follows:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in [paragraph (A)].

Specifically, defendant argued that the provision of its software using the criteria it selected was an action taken to make available to others the technical means to restrict access to malware, which is objectionable material.

The court agreed with defendant’s argument that the facts of this case were “indistinguishable” from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in in Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky, 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009), in which the court found that Section 230 immunity applied in the anti-malware context.

Here, plaintiff had argued that immunity should not apply because malware is not within the scope of “objectionable” material that it is okay to seek to filter in accordance with 230(c)(2)(B). Under plaintiff’s theory, malware is “not remotely related to the content categories enumerated” in Section 230(c)(2)(A), which (B) refers to. In other words, the objectionableness of malware is of a different nature than the objectionableness of material that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. The court rejected this argument on the basis that the determination of whether something is objectionable is up to the provider’s discretion. Since defendant found plaintiff’s software “objectionable” in accordance with its own judgment, the software qualifies as “objectionable” under the statute.

Plaintiff also argued that immunity should not apply because defendant’s actions taken to warn of plaintiff’s software were not taken in good faith. But the court applied the plain meaning of the statute to reject this argument – the good faith requirement only applies to conduct under Section 230(c)(2)(A), not (c)(2)(B).

Finally, plaintiff had argued that immunity should not apply with respect to its Lanham Act claim because of Section 230(e)(2), which provides that “nothing in [Section 230] shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.” The court rejected this argument because although the claim was brought under the Lanham Act, which includes provisions concerning trademark infringement (which clearly relates to intellectual property), the nature of the Lanham Act claim here was for unfair competition, which is not considered to be an intellectual property claim.

Enigma Software Group v. Malwarebytes Inc., 2017 WL 5153698 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2017)

About the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago technology and intellectual property attorney. Call Evan at (630) 362-7237, send email to ebrown [at] internetcases.com, or follow him on Twitter @internetcases. Read Evan’s other blog, UDRP Tracker, for information about domain name disputes.

November 3, 2017 Litigation, Section 230

Google can, at least for now, disregard Canadian court order requiring deindexing worldwide

U.S. federal court issues preliminary injunction, holding that enforcement of Canadian order requiring Google to remove search results would run afoul of the Communications Decency Act (at 47 U.S.C. 230)

canada-us
Canadian company Equustek prevailed in litigation in Canada against rival Datalink on claims relating to trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition. After the litigation, Equustek asked Google to remove Datalink search results worldwide. Google initially refused altogether, but after a Canadian court entered an injunction against Datalink, Google removed Datalink results from google.ca. Then a Canadian court ordered Google to delist worldwide, and Google complied. Google objected to the order requiring worldwide delisting, and took the case all the way up to the Canadian Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower courts’ orders requiring worldwide delisting.

So Google filed suit in federal court in the United States, seeking a declaratory judgment that being required to abide by the Canadian order would, among other things, be contrary to the protections afforded to interactive computer service providers under the Communications Decency Act, at 47 U.S.C. 230.

The court entered the preliminary injunction (i.e., it found in favor of Google pending a final trial on the merits), holding that (1) Google would likely succeed on its claim under the Communications Decency Act, (2) it would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities weighed in its favor, and (4) an injunction was in the public interest.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties. It states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” [More info about Section 230]

The court found that there was no question Google is a “provider” of an “interactive computer service.” Also, it found that Datalink—not Google—“provided” the information at issue. And finally, it found that the Canadian order would hold Google liable as the “publisher or speaker” of the information on Datalink’s websites. So the Canadian order treated Google as a publisher, and would impose liability for failing to remove third-party content from its search results. For these reasons, Section 230 applied.

Summarizing the holding, the court observed that:

The Canadian order would eliminate Section 230 immunity for service providers that link to third-party websites. By forcing intermediaries to remove links to third-party material, the Canadian order undermines the policy goals of Section 230 and threatens free speech on the global internet.

The case provides key insight into the evolving legal issues around global enforcement and governance.

Google, Inc. v. Equustek Solutions, Inc., 2017 WL 5000834 (N.D. Cal. November 2, 2017)

October 26, 2017 Section 230

YouTube not liable for aiding ISIS in Paris attack

The Communications Decency Act provided immunity to Google in a suit brought against it by the family of an American college student killed in the November 2015 attack.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Google (as operator of YouTube) alleging violation of federal laws that prohibit providing material support to terrorists, arising from the November 2015 Paris attack that ISIS carried out. Plaintiffs argued that the YouTube platform, among other things, aided in recruitment and provided ISIS the means to distribute messages about its activities.

Google moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230) provided immunity from suit. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

Section 230 Generally

Section 230(c) provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Accordingly, Section 230 precludes liability that treats a website as the publisher or speaker of information users provide on the website, protecting websites from liability for material posted on the website by someone else.

JASTA Did Not Repeal Section 230 Immunity

In response to Google’s arguments in favor of Section 230 immunity, plaintiffs first argued that a recent federal statute – the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or “JASTA” – effectively repealed the immunity conferred to interactive computer services by Section 230. Plaintiffs focused on language in the statute that stated that its purpose “is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief” against terrorists and those who assist them.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that JASTA repealed Section 230 immunity. Significantly, the statute did not expressly repeal Section 230’s protections, nor did it do so implicitly by evincing any “clear and manifest” congressional intent to repeal any part of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 Need Not Be Applied Outside the United States

Plaintiffs also argued that Section 230 immunity did not arise because the Communications Decency Act should not apply outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. According to plaintiffs, Google provided support and resources to ISIS outside the United States (in Europe and the Middle East), ISIS’s use of Google’s resources was outside the United States, and the Paris attacks and plaintiffs’ relative’s death took place outside the United States.

The court rejected this argument, holding that Section 230’s focus is on limiting liability. The application of the statute to achieve that objective must occur where the immunity is needed, namely, at the place of litigation. Since the potential for liability, and the application of immunity was occurring in the United States, there was no need to apply Section 230 “extraterritorially”.

Immunity Protected Google

Google argued that plaintiffs’ claims sought to treat it as the publisher or speaker of the offending ISIS content, thus satisfying one of the requirements for Section 230 immunity. Plaintiffs countered that their lawsuit did not depend on the characterization of Google as the publisher or speaker of ISIS’s content, because their claims focused on Google’s violations of the federal criminal statutes that bar the provision of material support to terrorists.

But the court found that the conduct Google was accused of — among other things, failing to ensure that ISIS members who had been kicked off could not re-establish accounts — fit within the traditional editorial functions of a website operator. Accordingly, despite the plaintiffs’ characterization of its claims, the court found such claims to be an attempt to treat Google as the publisher or speaker of the ISIS videos.

The court similarly rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that Section 230 immunity should not apply because, by appending advertisements to some of the ISIS videos, Google became an “information content provider” itself, and thus responsible for the videos. This argument failed primarily because the content of the advertisements (which themselves were provided by third parties) did not contribute to the unlawfulness of the content of the videos.

Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., — F.Supp.3d —, 2017 WL 4773366 (N.D. Cal., October 23, 2017)

September 29, 2017 Defamation, Section 230

Google and YouTube protected by Section 230

The case of Weerahandi v. Shelesh is a classic example of how Section 230 (a provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), found at 47 USC 230) shielded online intermediaries from alleged tort liability occasioned by their users.

Background Facts

Plaintiff was a YouTuber and filed a pro se lawsuit for, among other things, defamation, against a number of other YouTubers as well as Google and YouTube. The allegations arose from a situation back in 2013 in which one of the individual defendants sent what plaintiff believed to be a “false and malicious” DMCA takedown notice to YouTube. One of the defendants later took the contact information plaintiff had to provide in the counter-notification and allegedly disseminated that information to others who were alleged to have published additional defamatory YouTube videos.

Google and YouTube also got named as defendants for “failure to remove the videos” and for not taking “corrective action”. These parties moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming immunity under Section 230. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

Section 230’s Protections

Section 230 provides, in pertinent part that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Section 230 also provides that “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).

The CDA also “proscribes liability in situations where an interactive service provider makes decisions ‘relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network.’ ” Obado v. Magedson, 612 Fed.Appx. 90, 94–95 (3d Cir. 2015). Courts have recognized Congress conferred broad immunity upon internet companies by enacting the CDA, because the breadth of the internet precludes such companies from policing content as traditional media have. See Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398, 407 (6th Cir. 2014); Batzel v Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 2003); Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th 1997); DiMeo v. Max, 433 F. Supp. 2d 523, 528 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

How Section 230 Applied Here

In this case, the court found that the CDA barred plaintiff’s claims against Google and YouTube. Both Google and YouTube were considered “interactive computer service[s].” Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 551 (E.D. Pa. 2006). Plaintiff did not allege that Google or YouTube played any role in producing the allegedly defamatory content. Instead, Plaintiff alleged both websites failed to remove the defamatory content, despite his repeated requests.

Plaintiff did not cite any authority in his opposition to Google and YouTube’s motion, and instead argued that the CDA did not bar claims for the “failure to remove the videos” or to “take corrective action.” The court held that to the contrary, the CDA expressly protected internet companies from such liability. Under the CDA, plaintiff could not assert a claim against Google or YouTube for decisions “relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network. ” Obado, 612 Fed.Appx. at 94–95 (3d Cir. 2015); 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”). For these reasons, the court found the CDA barred plaintiff’s claims against Google and YouTube.

Weerahandi v. Shelesh, 2017 WL 4330365 (D.N.J. September 29, 2017)

November 28, 2016 Defamation, Section 230

Quora gets Section 230 victory in the Tenth Circuit

Pro se plaintiff Silver filed suit in federal court in New Mexico against the online question-and-answer website Quora, alleging that statements made by two different individuals concerning his professional services were defamatory. Quora moved to dismiss, arguing that the immunity provisions of the Communications Decency Act, at 47 U.S.C. 230 shielded it from liability arising from content posted by its users. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff sought review with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. On review, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

Citing to its previous Section 230 precedent, Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000), the court held that Quora was a provider of “an interactive computer service,” that its actions forming the basis of alleged liability, namely, in hosting the content, were that of a “publisher or speaker,” and that the content giving rise to the alleged liability was from “another information content provider,” i.e., the users who posted the content.

Silver v. Quora, Inc., 2016 WL 6892146 (10th Circuit, November 23, 2016)

September 14, 2016 Defamation, Section 230

Yelp not liable for allegedly defamatory customer reviews

In a recent case having an outcome that should surprise no one, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision that held Yelp immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230 – the “CDA”) over customer reviews that were allegedly defamatory.

Plaintiff sued Yelp for violations under RICO and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, as well as libel under Washington law. Yelp moved to dismiss for failure to state to claim upon which relief may be granted. The lower court found that plaintiff had failed to allege any facts that plausibly suggested Yelp was responsible for the content, and therefore dismissed the case. Plaintiffs sought review with the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed.

The appellate court observed that plaintiff’s complaint, which he filed pro se, “pushed the envelope” of creative pleading. The court observed that plaintiff cryptically – “to the point of opacity” – alleged that Yelp was the one that created and developed the offending content. The court declined to open the door to such “artful skirting” of the Communications Decency Act’s safe harbor provision.

The key question before the court was whether the alleged defamatory reviews were provided by Yelp or by another information content provider. CDA immunity does not extend to situations where the web site itself is responsible for the creation or development of the offending content. The immunity protects providers or users of interactive computer services when the claims being made against them seek to treat them as a publisher or speaker of the information provided by another information content provider.

In this case, the court found that a careful reading of plaintiff’s complaint revealed that he never specifically alleged that Yelp created the content of the allegedly defamatory posts. Rather, plaintiff pled that Yelp adopted them from another website and transformed them into its own stylized promotions. The court found that these “threadbare” allegations of Yelp’s fabrication of allegedly defamatory statements were implausible on their face and were insufficient to avoid immunity under the Communications Decency Act. The court was careful to note that CDA immunity does not extend to content created or developed by an interactive computer service. “But the immunity in the CDA is broad enough to require plaintiffs alleging such a theory to state the facts plausibly suggesting the defendant fabricated content under a third party’s identity.”

The plaintiff had alleged in part that Yelp’s rating system and its use by the author of the allegedly defamatory content resulted in the creation or development of information by Yelp. The court rejected this argument, finding that the rating system did “absolutely nothing to enhance the defamatory sting of the message beyond the words offered by the user.” The court further observed that the star rating system was best characterized as a neutral tool operating on voluntary inputs that did not amount to content development or creation.

Finally, the court addressed plaintiff’s cryptic allegations that Yelp should be held liable for republishing the alleged defamatory content as advertisements or promotions on Google. A footnote in the opinion states that plaintiff was not clear whether the alleged republication was anything more than the passive indexing of Yelp reviews by the Google crawler. The decision’s final outcome, however, does not appear to depend on whether Google indexed that content as Yelp passively stood by or whether Yelp affirmatively directed the content to Google. “Nothing in the text of the CDA indicates that immunity turns on how many times an interactive computer service publishes information provided by another information content provider.” In the same way that Yelp would not be liable for posting user generated content on its web site, it would not be liable for disseminating the same content in essentially the same format to a search engine. “Simply put, proliferation and dissemination of content does not equal creation or development of content.”

Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., — F.3d —, 2016 WL 4729492 (9th Cir. September 12, 2016)

August 12, 2016 Section 230, Social Media

Twitter avoids liability in terrorism lawsuit

Update 1/31/2018: The Ninth Circuit upheld the court’s decision discussed below.

The families of two U.S. contractors killed in Jordan sued Twitter, accusing the platform of providing material support to the terrorist organization ISIS. Plaintiffs alleged that by allowing ISIS to create and maintain Twitter accounts, the company violated the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Plaintiffs further claimed this support enabled ISIS to recruit, fundraise, and promote extremist propaganda, ultimately leading to the deaths of the contractors. The lawsuit aimed to hold Twitter responsible for the actions of ISIS and to penalize it for facilitating the organization’s digital presence.

Twitter moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) at 47 U.S.C. §230. Section 230 provides immunity to internet platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of content posted by third parties. The court had to decide whether Twitter’s role in allowing ISIS to use its platform made it liable for the consequences of ISIS’s acts.

The court dismissed the case, finding that Section 230 shielded Twitter from liability. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ claims attempted to treat Twitter as the publisher of content created by ISIS, which is precisely the type of liability Section 230 was designed to prevent. The court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible connection, or proximate causation, between Twitter’s actions and the deaths. Importantly, in the court’s view, plaintiffs could not demonstrate that ISIS’s use of Twitter directly caused the attack in Jordan or that the shooter had interacted with ISIS content on the platform.

The court further addressed plaintiffs’ argument regarding private messages sent through Twitter’s direct messaging feature. It ruled that these private communications were also protected under Section 230, as the law applies to all publishing activities, whether public or private.

Three reasons why this case matters:

Expanding the scope of Section 230: The case reinforced the broad immunity provided to tech companies under Section 230, including their handling of controversial or harmful content.
Clarifying proximate causation in ATA claims: The ruling highlighted the challenges of proving a direct causal link between a platform’s operations and acts of terrorism.
Balancing tech innovation and accountability: The decision underscored the ongoing debate about how to balance the benefits of open platforms with the need for accountability in preventing misuse.

Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Cal., August 10, 2016).

May 31, 2016 Section 230, Social Media

Immunity denied for website that failed to warn of dangerous activity

Jane Doe sued Internet Brands, the owner of the website Model Mayhem, for negligence after she was lured into a trap by two criminals who used the site to target victims. Plaintiff asked the court to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn users about the known threat posed by the criminals. The district court dismissed the case, finding the claim barred by the provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) found at 47 U.S.C. 230. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, holding that the CDA did not shield Internet Brands from liability for failing to warn.

Plaintiff, an aspiring model, joined Model Mayhem, a networking site for modeling professionals. In 2011, Plaintiff was contacted by individuals associated with the defendant, who posed as talent scouts and convinced her to travel to Florida for an audition. Once there, Plaintiff was drugged, raped, and recorded for pornography. The lawsuit revealed that Internet Brands had known since 2010 about these criminals and their use of the site to target victims but did not warn users.

Plaintiff argued that Internet Brands had a duty to warn users like her about the danger. Defendant argued that the CDA, which protects websites from liability as “publishers” of third-party content, barred the claim. Defendant claimed that issuing a warning would have effectively treated it as a publisher of user-generated content, a role protected under the CDA.

The court disagreed. It found that plaintiff’s claim did not depend on treating defendant as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. Instead, the claim arose from defendant’s alleged failure to act on its knowledge of the rapists’ activities. The court explained that the CDA does not provide blanket immunity for websites, especially when the obligation to warn does not require altering or removing user-generated content.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings, stating that the CDA did not block Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

Three reasons why this case matters:

Defining CDA Immunity: This decision clarified that the CDA does not protect websites from all legal claims, especially those unrelated to user-generated content.
Website Accountability: The case demonstrates that platforms can be held liable for failing to protect users from known risks.
Victim Protection: It shows that courts may balance user safety with the legal protections for online platforms.

Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir., May 31, 2016)

March 24, 2016 Privacy, Section 230

Facebook’s Terms of Service protect it from liability for offensive fake account

Someone set up a bogus Facebook account and posted, without consent, images and video of Plaintiff engaged in a lewd act. Facebook finally deleted the account, but not until two days had passed and Plaintiff had threatened legal action.

Plaintiff sued anyway, alleging, among other things, intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, and infliction of emotional distress. In his complaint, Plaintiff emphasized language from Facebook’s Terms of Service that prohibited users from posting content or taking any action that “infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise would violate the law.”

Facebook moved to dismiss the claims, making two arguments: (1) that the claims contradicted Facebook’s Terms of Service, and (2) that the claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act at 47 U.S.C. 230. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

It looked to the following provision from Facebook’s Terms of Service:

Although we provide rules for user conduct, we do not control or direct users’ actions on Facebook and are not responsible for the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook. We are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook. We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of Facebook.

The court also examined the following language from the Terms of Service:

We try to keep Facebook up, bug-free, and safe, but you use it at your own risk. We are providing Facebook as is without any express or implied warranties including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. We do not guarantee that Facebook will always be safe, secure or error-free or that Facebook will always function without disruptions, delays or imperfections. Facebook is not responsible for the actions, content, information, or data of third parties, and you release us, our directors, officers, employees, and agents from any claims and damages, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with any claims you have against any such third parties.

The court found that by looking to the Terms of Service to support his claims against Facebook, Plaintiff could not likewise disavow those portions of the Terms of Service which did not support his case. Because the Terms of Service said, among other things, that Facebook was not responsible for the content of what its users post, and that the a user uses the service as his or her on risk, the court could not place the responsibility onto Facebook for the offensive content.

Moreover, the court held that the Communications Decency Act shielded Facebook from liability. The CDA immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties. The court found that Facebook was an interactive computer service as contemplated under the CDA, the information for which Plaintiff sought to hold Facebook liable was information provided by another information content provider, and the complaint sought to hold Facebook as the publisher or speaker of that information.

Caraccioli v. Facebook, 2016 WL 859863 (N.D. Cal., March 7, 2016)

About the Author: Evan Brown is a Chicago attorney advising enterprises on important aspects of technology law, including software development, technology and content licensing, and general privacy issues.

March 15, 2016 Section 230

Communications Decency Act shields Backpage from liability for violation of federal sex trafficking law

backpage

Three Jane Doe plaintiffs, who alleged they were victims of sex trafficking, filed suit against online classified ad provider Backpage.com (“Backpage”), asserting that Backpage violated the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”) by structuring its website to facilitate sex trafficking and implementing rules and processes designed to actually encourage sex trafficking.

The district court dismissed the TVPRA claims for failure to state a claim, holding that the Communications Decency Act, at 47 U.S.C. §230, provided immunity from the claims. Plaintiffs sought review with the First Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal.

Section 230 principally shields website operators from being “treated as the publisher or speaker” of material posted by users of the site. In this case, the court held that plaintiffs’ claims were barred because the TVPRA claims “necessarily require[d] that the defendant be treated as the publisher or speaker of content provide by another.” Since the plaintiffs were trafficked by means of the third party advertisements on Backpage, there was no harm to them but for the content of the postings.

The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to characterize Backpage’s actions as “an affirmative course of conduct” distinct from the exercise of the “traditional publishing or editorial functions” of a website owner. The choice of what words or phrases to be displayed on the site, the decision not to reduce misinformation by changing its policies, and the decisions in structuring its website and posting requirements, in the court’s view, were traditional publisher functions entitled to Section 230 protection.

Does v. Backpage.com, LLC, No. 15-1724 (1st Cir., March 14, 2016)

Evan Brown is a Chicago attorney advising enterprises on important aspects of technology law, including software development, technology and content licensing, and general privacy issues.