Sign Up
Stay current with GH&R Newsletters. Click here to sign up.
E-Commerce News
Website Operator Not Immune for Content it Provides; But, CDA Immunity Covers Publicity of Content
March 28, 2006
WEBSITE OPERATOR NOT IMMUNE FOR
CONTENT IT PROVIDES
A Texas federal court has ruled that the broad grant of immunity provided to Web site operators by the federal Communications Decency Act ("CDA") applies to liability for content provided by third parties, but does not protect content posted by the Web site operator itself.
A Texas federal court has ruled that the broad grant of immunity provided to Web site operators by the federal Communications Decency Act ("CDA") applies to liability for content provided by third parties, but does not protect content posted by the Web site operator itself.The case arose from the political battleground of Brownsville, Texas. Robert Sanchez, an unsuccessful candidate for city commissioner, who also operated an online forum, allegedly posted defamatory statements concerning Elena Cisneros, the wife of the candidate who defeated Sanchez. In an effort to claim the CDA immunity, Sanchez removed the case to federal court.
Sanchez argued that the CDA provision 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 content provider" was intended by Congress to preempt state libel law claims against Web site operators.
Defendant's strategy backfired, however, when the court ruled that the CDA only immunizes Web site operators for unlawful content supplied by third parties. According to the court, a claim that seeks to hold the defendant responsible for his own allegedly defamatory postings is not preempted by the CDA. The court feared the potential consequences of a contrary ruling. "Holding otherwise would have the effect of allowing individuals to escape liability for making defamatory statements for which they would otherwise be held liable simply by publishing the defamatory statements on a web-site that they administer," the court said. "This Court cannot imagine that Congress intended to create a different standard for authors of defamatory statements who double as the administrators of web-sites."
The message from the Texas court is that Web site operators who post content supplied by third parties, as well as content they supply themselves, need to know that they wear two hats (probably cowboy hats, it is Texas afterall.) And they are immune only when wearing the first one.
Apparently, the immunity granted Web site operators by the federal Communications Decency Act is broad enough to cover the operator's acts of organizing, embellishing, and publicizing allegedly defamatory content submitted by a third party. That's the recent holding from a federal court in Louisiana.
The plaintiff brought the case because she contended that her ex-boyfriend posted false, defamatory and sexually obscene information about the plaintiff on Web sites operated by the defendant Various Inc. According to the plaintiff, Various "blasted" the content to Internet search engines, adding descriptive words such as "horny" to the content provided by the former boyfriend, organized the content geographically, provided a search engine to categorize the content, and provided a mechanism to input information.
Despite this activity, the court concluded that the Web site operator at no time became a "content provider" outside the protections of the CDA.
According to the Louisiana court, other courts have taken a relatively expansive view of "interactive computer service," broadly interpreting the CDA definition, which considers immune "any information service, system or access software provider."
On the other hand, courts have narrowly interpreted "information content provider," which the CDA defines as a person or entity "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service."
The court said that the defendant was an interactive computer service, immune under the CDA, unless it also acted as an information content provider with regard to the false and sexually obscene information posted about the plaintiff. But here it was the former boyfriend, and not the defendant, who provided the offensive content.
In short, despite the "serious and utterly deplorable consequences", the court said that Various was entitled to immunity under §230(c) of the CDA.
Hopefully the plaintiff will have better luck with her next relationship!
This Newsletter is a periodic publication of Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own advisor concerning your situation and any specific legal question you may have.