CDA immunity in California

2022Council v. Roommates.Com, LLC (2008) 521 F.3d 1157, 1163 (Roommates.Com).) “Simply put, the immunity provision was “ ‘enacted to protect websites against the evil of liability for failure to remove offensive content.’ ” (Internet Brands, Inc., at p. 852.) Congress intended section 230 “ ‘ “to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services . . . [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” [Citations.] To that end, CD

2022Council v. Roommates.Com, LLC (2008) 521 F.3d 1157, 1163 (Roommates.Com).) “Simply put, the immunity provision was “ ‘enacted to protect websites against the evil of liability for failure to remove offensive content.’ ” (Internet Brands, Inc., at p. 852.) Congress intended section 230 “ ‘ “to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services . . . [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” [Citations.] To that end, CD

2022Council v. Roommates.Com, LLC (2008) 521 F.3d 1157, 1163 (Roommates.Com).) “Simply put, the immunity provision was “ ‘enacted to protect websites against the evil of liability for failure to remove offensive content.’ ” (Internet Brands, Inc., at p. 852.) Congress intended section 230 “ ‘ “to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services . . . [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” [Citations.] To that end, CD

2022HomeAway.com emphasized that “[l]ike their brick-and- 76 mortar counterparts, internet companies must also comply with any number of local regulations concerning, for example, employment, tax, or zoning” and “allowing internet companies to claim CDA immunity under these circumstances would risk exempting them from most local regulations and . . . ‘create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet.’ ” (HomeAway.com, supra, 918 F.3d at p. 683 , quoting Roommates.com, supra, 521 F.3d at p. 1164 .) The court explained, “We have consistently eschewed an expansive reading of [section 230] that would re

2022Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (7th Cir. 2008) 519 F.3d 666, 668, 672 , held section 230 barred claims that Craigslist.com violated laws against housing discrimination by hosting user posts advertising, for example, “no minorities” or “no children.” Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 325 F.Supp.3d 393, 400 , footnote. 5, which 70 Contrary to Amazon’s characterization, enforcing its obligations under Proposition 65 does not require it to “monitor, review, and revise” product listings.

2022Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (7th Cir. 2008) 519 F.3d 666, 668, 672 , held section 230 barred claims that Craigslist.com violated laws against housing discrimination by hosting user posts advertising, for example, “no minorities” or “no children.” Eberhart v. Amazon.com, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 325 F.Supp.3d 393, 400 , footnote. 5, which 70 Contrary to Amazon’s characterization, enforcing its obligations under Proposition 65 does not require it to “monitor, review, and revise” product listings.

2022Council v. Roommates.Com, LLC (2008) 521 F.3d 1157, 1163 (Roommates.Com).) “Simply put, the immunity provision was “ ‘enacted to protect websites against the evil of liability for failure to remove offensive content.’ ” (Internet Brands, Inc., at p. 852.) Congress intended section 230 “ ‘ “to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services . . . [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” [Citations.] To that end, CD

2022In Cross v. Facebook, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at pages 194 and 207, we held CDA immunity barred claims seeking to impose liability for Facebook’s failure to remove posts by users that allegedly incited violence and generated death threats against the plaintiffs.

2006(See, e.g., Batzel v. Smith, supra, 333 F.3d at p. 1030, fn. 15 [term “includes a wide range of cyberspace services, not only [I]nternet service providers”]; Optinrealbig.com, LLC v. Ironport Systems, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2004) 323 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1044 [term is “broadly defined” under the statute].) Thus, there are a number of examples of the expansive application of “interactive computer service” in determining CDA immunity.

2006While many of the cases addressing CDA immunity have involved claims for defamation (see, e.g., Batzel v. Smith, supra, 333 F.3d 1018 ; Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., supra, 206 F.3d 980 ; PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinko’s, Inc., supra, 163 F.Supp.2d 1069 ; Blumenthal v. Drudge (D.D.C. 1998) 992 F.Supp. 44 ), it is clear that immunity under section 230 is not so limited.

2024In Murphy, the First District Court of Appeal noted that Barnes “never suggested… that all contract or promissory estoppel claims survive CDA immunity.” (Murphy, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 29.) Instead, Barnes had explained that, “as a matter of contract law, the promise must ‘be as clear and well defined as a promise that could serve as an offer, or that otherwise might be sufficient to give rise to a traditional contract supported by consideration,” and that “a general monitoring policy ... does not suffice for contract liability.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Barnes, supra, 570 F.3d at p. 1108 .) For

2024In Murphy, the First District Court of Appeal noted that Barnes “never suggested… that all contract or promissory estoppel claims survive CDA immunity.” (Murphy, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 29.) Instead, Barnes had explained that, “as a matter of contract law, the promise must ‘be as clear and well defined as a promise that could serve as an offer, or that otherwise might be sufficient to give rise to a traditional contract supported by consideration,” and that “a general monitoring policy ... does not suffice for contract liability.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Barnes, supra, 570 F.3d at p. 1108 .) For

2016Bollaert concedes on appeal that an information content provider does not receive CDA immunity. 9 In arguing he cannot be an information content provider subject to liability, Bollaert compares his conduct to that of the defendants in Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d 327 , Carafano, supra, 339 F.3d 1119 and Jones, supra, 755 F.3d 398 , who were held to fall within the scope of CDA immunity.

2006It reasoned that the CDA’s immunity provisions were the result of congressional recognition of “the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium” (Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d at p. 330 ), and Congress’s desire “to encourage service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their services.” (Id. at p. 331.) The court held that section 230(c)(1) conferred “broad immunity” (Zeran, supra, at p. 331) applicable to all interactive computer service providers, irrespective of whether they were publishers or distributors of

2016Bollaert concedes on appeal that an information content provider does not receive CDA immunity. 9 In arguing he cannot be an information content provider subject to liability, Bollaert compares his conduct to that of the defendants in Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d 327 , Carafano, supra, 339 F.3d 1119 and Jones, supra, 755 F.3d 398 , who were held to fall within the scope of CDA immunity.

2006(See, e.g., Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, at p. 831 [online auction Web site]; Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 692 [library providing Internet access to public by use of computers]; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d at p. 1124 [online dating Web site]; Batzel v. Smith, supra, at p. 1021 [nonprofit Web site operator]; Chicago Lawyers’ Comm, for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 681 [operator of Internet bulletin board carrying notices of jobs, housing services, and goods for sale]; Parker v. Google, I

2016Lexis 24251; see also Medytox Solutions, Inc. v. Investorshub.com, Inc. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2014) 152 So.3d 727 .) Yelp argues that cases extending CDA immunity to claims for injunctive relief that are alleged directly against an interactive service provider in a tort action must apply with equal force to an injunction that binds a nonparty.

2006(See, e.g., Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, at p. 831 [online auction Web site]; Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 692 [library providing Internet access to public by use of computers]; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d at p. 1124 [online dating Web site]; Batzel v. Smith, supra, at p. 1021 [nonprofit Web site operator]; Chicago Lawyers’ Comm, for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 681 [operator of Internet bulletin board carrying notices of jobs, housing services, and goods for sale]; Parker v. Google, I

2006While many of the cases addressing CDA immunity have involved claims for defamation (see, e.g., Batzel v. Smith, supra, 333 F.3d 1018 ; Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., supra, 206 F.3d 980 ; PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinko’s, Inc., supra, 163 F.Supp.2d 1069 ; Blumenthal v. Drudge (D.D.C. 1998) 992 F.Supp. 44 ), it is clear that immunity under section 230 is not so limited.

2006While many of the cases addressing CDA immunity have involved claims for defamation (see, e.g., Batzel v. Smith, supra, 333 F.3d 1018 ; Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., supra, 206 F.3d 980 ; PatentWizard, Inc. v. Kinko’s, Inc., supra, 163 F.Supp.2d 1069 ; Blumenthal v. Drudge (D.D.C. 1998) 992 F.Supp. 44 ), it is clear that immunity under section 230 is not so limited.

2006(See Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d at p. 1124 [interactive dating service not information content provider despite supplying questionnaire used by third party to provide information]; Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., supra, 206 F.3d at 985 [AOL, as interactive computer service provider that published allegedly inaccurate stock information created by third party, immune under CDA, notwithstanding AOL advised information content providers on other occasions of inaccuracy of stock information]; Barrett v. Rosenthal, supra, 40 *808 Cal.4th at p. 60, fn. 19 [“

2006(See, e.g., Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, at p. 831 [online auction Web site]; Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 692 [library providing Internet access to public by use of computers]; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d at p. 1124 [online dating Web site]; Batzel v. Smith, supra, at p. 1021 [nonprofit Web site operator]; Chicago Lawyers’ Comm, for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 681 [operator of Internet bulletin board carrying notices of jobs, housing services, and goods for sale]; Parker v. Google, I

2006(See, e.g., Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 692-693 [rejecting contention that library was not immune because of its governmental entity status]; Donato v. Moldow (2005) 374 N.J.Super. 475, 486-488 [ 865 A.2d 711, 718 ] [Web site’s noncommercial status and limited use irrelevant to CDA immunity analysis].) Second: Does “the cause of action treat the defendant [(Agilent)] as a publisher or speaker of information?” (Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) On information and belief, plaintiffs alleged that Agilent knew (1) Moore was sending threaten

2006(See, e.g., Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 692-693 [rejecting contention that library was not immune because of its governmental entity status]; Donato v. Moldow (2005) 374 N.J.Super. 475, 486-488 [ 865 A.2d 711, 718 ] [Web site’s noncommercial status and limited use irrelevant to CDA immunity analysis].) Second: Does “the cause of action treat the defendant [(Agilent)] as a publisher or speaker of information?” (Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) On information and belief, plaintiffs alleged that Agilent knew (1) Moore was sending threaten

2006(See generally Salazar v. Upland Police Dept. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 934, 938 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 ] [summary judgment appropriate where the defendant establishes immunity defense].) 25 D.

2006(See generally Salazar v. Upland Police Dept. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 934, 938 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 ] [summary judgment appropriate where the defendant establishes immunity defense].) 25 D.

2006(See, e.g., Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, at p. 831 [online auction Web site]; Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 692 [library providing Internet access to public by use of computers]; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d at p. 1124 [online dating Web site]; Batzel v. Smith, supra, at p. 1021 [nonprofit Web site operator]; Chicago Lawyers’ Comm, for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 681 [operator of Internet bulletin board carrying notices of jobs, housing services, and goods for sale]; Parker v. Google, I

2006(See, e.g., Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 684 [claims included nuisance and premises liability]; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d 1119 [claims included invasion of privacy, misappropriation of right of publicity, and negligence]; Doe v. *807 America Online, Inc. (Fla. 2001) 783 So.2d 1010 [negligent failure to control third party’s illegal postings].) And several cases applying section 230 immunity have involved the specific claim alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint here, namely, an intentional infliction claim.

2006(Barrett v. Rosenthal, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 57-58.) Thus, under Barrett—although Agilent did not act as a distributor of Moore’s offensive e-mails and postings, and at most merely provided the means of communicating the messages by Moore’s use of his employer’s computer to access the Internet to send the messages—CDA immunity applies in this instance irrespective of whether Agilent is deemed to have been a publisher or distributor. 26 Citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S. 46, 56 [ 99 L.Ed.2d 41 , 108 S.Ct. 876 ], Agilent argues on appeal that plaintiffs’ intentional and neglig

2006(Barrett v. Rosenthal, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 57-58.) Thus, under Barrett—although Agilent did not act as a distributor of Moore’s offensive e-mails and postings, and at most merely provided the means of communicating the messages by Moore’s use of his employer’s computer to access the Internet to send the messages—CDA immunity applies in this instance irrespective of whether Agilent is deemed to have been a publisher or distributor. 26 Citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S. 46, 56 [ 99 L.Ed.2d 41 , 108 S.Ct. 876 ], Agilent argues on appeal that plaintiffs’ intentional and neglig

2006(See, e.g., Batzel v. Smith, supra, 333 F.3d at p. 1030, fn. 15 [term “includes a wide range of cyberspace services, not only [I]nternet service providers”]; Optinrealbig.com, LLC v. Ironport Systems, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2004) 323 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1044 [term is “broadly defined” under the statute].) Thus, there are a number of examples of the expansive application of “interactive computer service” in determining CDA immunity.

2006(See, e.g., Gentry v. eBay, Inc., supra, at p. 831 [online auction Web site]; Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 692 [library providing Internet access to public by use of computers]; Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., supra, 339 F.3d at p. 1124 [online dating Web site]; Batzel v. Smith, supra, at p. 1021 [nonprofit Web site operator]; Chicago Lawyers’ Comm, for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2006) 461 F.Supp.2d 681 [operator of Internet bulletin board carrying notices of jobs, housing services, and goods for sale]; Parker v. Google, I

2006(Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, supra, at pp. 697-698; see also Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., supra, 31 P.3d at 42 [“courts that have considered the question have held § 230 provides immunity to civil claims generally”].) We conclude, therefore, that the claims against Agilent treated it “as the publisher or speaker” (§ 230(c)(1)) of Moore’s messages and that plaintiffs’ claims were among those to which immunity under the CDA potentially applies.