Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit offered its latest take on Section 230 immunity in Fair Housing Counsel of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com. The court, in three separate opinions, offered a novel reading of the statute that, unless limited by future panels to the unique facts of this case, will prove a font of disastrously uncertain liability for websites and other web-based services.
Section 230, for those unfamiliar, provides online services immunity from any cause of action, with the exception of federal intellectual property and criminal claims, arising out of their publication of content authored by third parties. Although the statute has traditionally been interpreted expansively, after the most recent major 230 decision in California, the state Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of a broad immunity in Barrett v. Rosenthal, a backlash of sorts was probably inevitable.
And if a court wants to rein in Section 230, the best way to do so is through classification of the defendant as an “information content provider” – defined as “any person or entity that is responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information provided through the internet.” The court, stretching that definition to what one has to imagine is its logical breaking point, held that Roommates.com, a website that allows users to post and search profiles of those offering and seeking housing, could be held liable for discriminatory preferences expressed in those profiles.
The panel’s three opinions are rife with juicy tidbits, but I’ll just focus in on a few of the highlights. First, the court opined that because Roommates designed the questionnaire used by its members to create their profiles, including drop-down forms that allowed users to state sex and gender-based roommate preferences, it could be held liable as an information content provider of the questionnaire itself. I don’t find this particularly troubling since the mere offering of choices in a drop-down menu will rarely be enough to create liability, even without immunity.
If the court had stopped there, this decision would be within the bounds of reasonable interpretation of the statute. But things went steeply downhill from there. Next, the court held that Roommates could not avail itself of 230 immunity for its publishing and distributing of user profiles. According to the court:
While Roommate provides a useful service, its search mechanism and email notifications mean that it is neither a passive pass-through of information provided by others nor merely a facilitator of expression by individuals. By categorizing, channeling and limiting the distribution of users’ profiles, Roommate provides an additional layer of information that it is “responsible” at least “in part” for creating or developing.
This passage should strike fear in the heart of any website owner. By allowing users to search or filter a database using certain criteria and programmatically returning results, a provider can be classified as an information content provider and thus ineligible for 230 immunity. Note that while in this case those search criteria may have been illicit categories, nothing in the court’s logic dictates that the search mechanism in itself rely on categories that are violative of the law. An “additional layer of information” can be added by in many ways – by providing a general purpose search feature, for example. In fact, under a broad reading of the court’s decision, any degree of interactivity is sufficient to undermine immunity. This flies in the face of the purpose of 230 as well as the Ninth Circuit’s own precedent.
The court’s test for status as an information content provider is, in some respects, reminiscent of the Grokster inducement standard: where a provider “actively encourages” third parties to author and post “defamatory, private or otherwise tortious or unlawful information,” 230 immunity is not available. The limits of this standard are fuzzy at best. Are explicit requests for false and defamatory postings necessary? Or is a forum generally devoted to unconfirmed reports of unsavory behavior enough? If the court was going to issue an opinion that was wrong as a matter of both law and policy, it could have at least been more precise in its choice of words.
In what would appear the saving grace of this decision, the court held that Roommates could not be held liable for information written by users in the free-form Additional Comments section of their profiles.1 But tucked into this otherwise noncontroversial discussion is a rather chilling statement. According to the court, Roommates retained immunity for the Additional Comments section, in part, because it did not use that information “to limit or channel access to listings.” That passage, again, suggests that if Roommates allowed users to search or filter results on the basis of these free form user-generated responses, immunity may be called into question.
Hopefully, future Ninth Circuit panels interpreting 230 are as quick to ignore precedent as this one was.
More commentary from Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and Joe Gratz.
- Judge Reinhardt in his partial dissent would have held Roommates potentially liable for discriminatory preferences disclosed in this text box, in part because the Additional Comment box appears after questions regarding gender and sexual preference, and – no kidding – because some users of the site like “whiteboy73″ and “blackbarbie” chose screennames that may reveal their race. I’m at a loss for any charitable interpretation of Reinhardt’s logic, so I’ll let the reasoning speak for itself. [↩]
12 Comments
I read the limitation more narrowly–I think the language on 5721 (and that Ikuta comments on) points out that it’s not just a matter of allowing users to filter out certain characteristics; it (1) forces an applicant to declare those characteristics to advertise; and (2) prevents that same applicant from viewing the profiles of those who have discriminated against her. This is a more active denial of information than a user-created filter, and that distinction stuck out to me, at least.
Hi Sherwin. I admit that that text suggests a narrower reading of “information content provider.” But if that narrow definition was what the court was going for, it certainly used some unnecessarily broad language elsewhere in the opinion to get there. I think Ikuta’s opinion is an admirable attempt to limit the negative impact of Kozinski’s musings.
Second, even if that narrower definition is what subsequent courts take from this opinion, it doesn’t allay my concerns much.
It seems to me that what Roommates does is filter user-generated information based on user-defined settings. The fact that these filters are pre-defined on the basis of the content of a user’s own profile rather than more flexible after-the-fact search criteria doesn’t seem to me to be a good basis for distinguishing info content providers from more passive services.
I think the court let the fact that the search criteria are closely tied to the allegedly illicit content creep into its analysis of what should be an analytically distinct question as to status as an information content provider.
I have a case pending in the Third Circuit against Google (Parker v. Google) in which a ruling is due out any time now on this very issue.
I argued that Google shouldn’t get Section 230 protection because they compile the search results, but also because they cannot identify the original source of the defamation, including anonymous sources who can’t be sued.
The problem is that Google causes 99 percent of the damages from defamation, by moving the statements out of their original context, away from their original point of publication, and makes them searchable by the name of the target, by those who are often decisionmakers in the target’s life.
Do you think anyone is going to want to become a whistleblower or rock the boat in general in a society that allows for this type of unfettered retribution? Libel laws were designed as an alternative to *dueling*. They are hardly trivial.
Ray,
As I’m sure you suspect, I don’t believe you are entitled to any recovery from Google for defamatory statements authored by third parties that happen to find their way into Google’s cache. Liability under those circumstances would place a burden on search engines to police the entirety of the internet for potentially defamatory content. And, well, that’s just silly.
Google does, as you point out, make information more accessible. Some of that information, no doubt, will rub various folks the wrong way for various reasons. But distinguishing those with legitimate claims – and I take no position here on the merits of your defamation claim – from those who simply object to publication of true but unflattering information is not a burden that rests or should rest on Google. If it did, that liability would quickly devolve into a heckler’s veto and deny society as a whole the benefits of the communication the internet enables.
Purported victims of online defamation are not entitled to the sue the deepest pocket that transferred, cached, or linked to the speech at issue. If you want to sue someone, you should sue the person who actually wrote the text you claim is defamatory. They may be anonymous, but that’s hardly Google’s fault.
Perhaps the better approach is to use the power of the medium to correct the misperceptions rather than running off to the court house. See Relative Access to Corrective Speech: A New Test for Requiring Actual Malice, 94. Calif. L. Rev. 833 (2006).
chodne ki kahani
meijerwww com job
amelia airheart biography
foto debajo falda sin bragas
ronald may of utah
scratch and dent warehouse new albany
bls precourse test 2010 american heart association
dave made linear amplifier
malecon culia
african american male dreads
5 56 ballistics
synonym dictionary
c phen syrup
outlook 2007 sbcglobal setup
bautizo invitaciones digitales
myers snow plow troubleshooting
onomatopoeia worksheets
shemale masterbating cum
536 882502
walmartbenefits online paystub paycheck
donk lift kits michigan
padosan ki beti
bloods prayer gangs
nicole catsouras chp accident video
adik dan kakak ngentot
nickel and dimed summary
trapdoor serial number lookup
lennox whisper heat furnace troubleshooting
shotgun slug ballistics chart
high abs basophils
tribune and georgia newspaper kingsland ga
cartas de amorcito
wet crotch cum
cobray derringer plans
were does the white trumpeter swan live
308 vs 30 06 ballistics
free dr seuss bulletin board ideas
dihybrid cross worksheet
moldes de llaveros en fomy
american tire brentwood
summit mud dog tires
firewheel mall
kriss kross boys age
jonah falcon pictures 13 5
artistas mexicanas calientes
recoil chart
maltese pincher
njask test samples
little flat chested tittie fuck
winchester model 94 serial numbers
derringers parts barrels
bobby kent florida murder
japanese ladies hairstyle
delious flaveroflove sex tapes
spanked soundly otk stories
graduate layered bob
intratec firearms inc
enanos follando mujeres
male nipple play sites
yung teen sex videos
mt pleasant snowmobile used parts
madness zombie mod
llite blue postal employees
cheats on aq com
pee hole sex play videos
runes scape cheats
extreme bbq drum smokers
paulina sandovals pussy
winchester model 190 6
escuela sabaticas para menores
list of songs in talladega nights
snowmobile and motorcycle salvage mt pleasant
eragon 2 trailer release date 2008
klv 1000 linear
steve harvey nude
charlie spradley
libug video downloader
pier 1 outlet
taurus 40 handgun
colombianas mamando verga youtube
how to crocheta baby blanket
estudiantes mexicanas cojiendo
pressure psia psig conversion
shotgun slugs in riot barrel
virtual villagers tech points cheat
resepi kew tiau sup
what if 11 celsius in ferinheight
lisa raye scandal
www sexy urdu khani
quienceria gowns
scarlet ibis represents human nature
holley casting numbers
insane asylum krome ave
discount ringling brothers funundrum circus tickets
kerry byron mythbusters
vias muzzle beake
tattoos of pit bulls
cojer mexicanas
pics o gator mouth pitbulls
city of houston inmates
ancient greek tattoos
carson prairie scott oakbrook il
abandoned insane asylum miami
18 qt ge roaster oven recipies
artitas desnudas latinas com
bellsouth pop imap settings
1 6 liters equals how many ounces
1903 springfield action for sale
baikal coach gun
am125424 cross reference
bajo las faldas
aborgraffiti webs com
ac oil filter chart
boondock saints courtroom speech script
bankofamericasignin banking
arroyo nightclub arcadia
26 inch rims for 1985 delta 88
belks maryville tn
07 triumph t100 operation manual
1000 wat amp schematic
1958 f100 craigslist
alphabet alliteration poems for kids
8 team double elimination bracket with bi
2000 toyota tundra power steering belt diagram
6ml in teaspoons
antonia toya hairstyles
aztecs and butterflies
20 vartarg cartridge
2000 saturn security system troubleshooting
18 oldxxx freemovies
arreglos de mesa infantiles
2010 pretty girls braid style
asa citation maker
13 bu smidley steer stuffer
hot nude yourt
13 round magazine extention for shotguns
acrostic patience
repair remington 513t
amc delancey phila pa
baby pygmy goats for sale in ohio
abc letter in font write
arrow trajectory table
1986 ford bronco serpentine belt diagram
andy roddick bulge sexy revealed
amanda hurley model
2006 sss contribution bracket
8 inch glasspack
alpo harlem
appliance store outlets
authors tone worksheets
96 firebird wiring schematic 3 8
al elizalde santa ana
26 oz vs pint conversion
asshoney com
9mm vs 40 cal ballistics
american game roosters
240 ml is equal to _ teaspoons
mustang serpentine diagram
ballistics on 50 caliber
1920s prohibition powerpoint
3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Web 2.0 beware: Fair Housing Counsel of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com…
We’ve extensively covered the various fair-housing complaints against Craiglist (Aug. 10, 2005; Feb. 9, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, Jun. 28, Dec. 1, 2006) for that service’s hosting ads for housing and roommates that fall afoul……
[...] When one recalls that Kozinski penned the opinion in the rightly-maligned Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC decision from May of this year, one can see how divergent Kozinski’s views are on these topics from his fellow judges. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
[...] Last week in my Cyberlaw class, we spent some time talking about the wonders of Section 230 immunity and the uncertainty resulting from the muddled triumvirate of readings offered by Ninth Circuit’s Roommates decision. Not surprisingly, the Ninth Circuit has deemed that one deserving of a do-over. [...]
Post a Comment