U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 181— FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

28 U.S.C. § 4102

Recognition of foreign defamation judgments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)First Amendment Considerations.—(1)In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that—(A) the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by the constitution and law of the State in which the domestic court is located; or(B) even if the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication did not provide as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the constitution and law of the State, the party opposing recognition or enforcement of that foreign judgment would have been found liable for defamation by a domestic court applying the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the constitution and law of the State in which the domestic court is located.(2)Burden of establishing application of defamation laws.—The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment shall bear the burden of making the showings required under subparagraph (A) or (B).(b)Jurisdictional Considerations.—(1)In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the United States.(2)Burden of establishing exercise of jurisdiction.—The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment shall bear the burden of making the showing that the foreign court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with the due process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the United States.(c)Judgment Against Provider of Interactive Computer Service.—(1)In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) unless the domestic court determines that the judgment would be consistent with section 230 if the information that is the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States.(2)Burden of establishing consistency of judgment.—The party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment shall bear the burden of establishing that the judgment is consistent with section 230.(d)Appearances Not a Bar.—An appearance by a party in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment to which this section applies shall not deprive such party of the right to oppose the recognition or enforcement of the judgment under this section, or represent a waiver of any jurisdictional claims.(e)Rule of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to—(1) affect the enforceability of any foreign judgment other than a foreign judgment for defamation; or(2) limit the applicability of section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) to causes of action for defamation.(Added Pub. L. 111–223, § 3(a), Aug. 10, 2010, 124 Stat. 2381.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Doug Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Doug Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge: This case requires us to construe the newly-enacted Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (the “SPEECH Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 4102 . Appellants Trout Point Lodge, Ltd.”
Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013). “See 28 U.S.C. § 4102 (a)(1). Notably, the SPEECH Act does not pertain to all foreign judgments allegedly inconsistent with any part of the First Amendment but focuses uniquely on defamation actions and the "First Amendment rights of American authors and publishers.”
Hassell v. Bird, 420 P.3d 776 (Cal. 2018). “" ( 28 U.S.C. § 4102 (c)(1).) In arguing that section 230 immunity should not apply, Justice Liu emphasizes that here there was a judicial determination-albeit through an uncontested proceeding-that the challenged reviews are defamatory.”
Jones v. Dirty World Ent. Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014). “See 28 U.S.C. § 4102 (c)(1) (providing that U.”
Handshoe v. Perret, 270 F. Supp. 3d 915 (S.D. Miss. 2017). · cites it 3× “(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 4102 ). The present case appears to relate to a separate, distinct Canadian judgment from the one-that was before the Fifth Circuit in 2013.”
Soojung Jang v. Trs. of St. Johnsbury Acad., 331 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D. Vt. 2018). “" 28 U.S.C. § 4102 (a)(1)(A), (B) ; see also Trout Point Lodge, Ltd.”
Doe v. Backpage.com, LLC, 104 F. Supp. 3d 149 (D. Mass. 2015). “See 28 U.S.C. § 4102 (c)(1). 5 The local government amici attempt to repackage Backpage as an “information content provider,” an entity that section 230 defines as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information…”
Mitchell v. DHR (S.D. Ala. 2020). · cites it 3× “The statute following § 4101 is 28 U.S.C. § 4102 , which is concerned with how a domestic court should recognize a foreign judgment for defamation.”
Kurraba Grp. Exposed v. Kurraba Grp. Pty Ltd, et al. (N.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 2× “defamation law and are 5 protected speech under the First Amendment, and that the Australian injunction and any resulting judgment are repugnant to 6 the public policy of the United States and unenforceable domestically pursuant to the SPEECH Act, 28 U.”
in Re Facebook, Inc. & Facebook, Inc. D/B/A Instagram (Tex. 2021). “” 28 U.S.C. § 4102 (c), (e). Several courts have recognized that these legislative extensions of CDA immunity, modest as they were, are nonetheless some evidence of Congress’s lack of objection to the courts’ interpretation of section 230.”
Compania De Inversiones v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (10th Cir. 2023). “2381 (2010) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 4102 ); Trout Point Lodge, Ltd.”
Sheila Eyajan v. Nesco Resources LLC (3rd Cir. 2023). “§ 4101 (defining “defamation” and certain other terms for the purposes of statutes concerning foreign judgments, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 4102 - 4105), and several federal criminal statutes.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.