U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 6A— PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS › Part Part A— Administration

42 U.S.C. § 230

Repealed. Apr. 27, 1956, ch. 211, § 5(e), 70 Stat. 117

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(2)(A). Zango did not adopt this argument.”
Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 3d 564 (E.D. Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “The defendants have filed a joint motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims are barred by the immunity granted to online service providers under the Communications Decency Act, 42 U.S.C. § 230 , and that the pleaded facts do not support the causes of action.”
Holomaxx Tech. v. Microsoft Corp., 783 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “lability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information…”
Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2003). “” 42 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(2). Second, all of the reported chat room statements are “information provided by another information content provider.”
Doe v. Deluca (Vt. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 230 (e). “[T]he Circuits are in general agreement that the text of Section 230(c)(1) should be construed broadly in favor of immunity.”
Deutsch v. Microsoft Corp. (D.N.J. 2023). “” Here, Microsoft seeks immunity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(2); it does not argue that it should or should not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information.”
Dipp-Paz v. Facebook (S.D.N.Y. 2019). “The Communication Decency Act Because Plaintiff asserts that Facebook violated his rights to free speech by blocking his Facebook account, the Court also evaluates Plaintiff’s claim under the Communication Decency Act (CDA), 42 U.S.C. § 230 . Section 230(c)(2)(A) of the CDA…”
Hepp v. Facebook, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2020). “” 42 U.S.C. § 230 (a)(3). The statute further reads that the “policy of the United States” is 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[.”
Mazgaj v. Anthony (S.D. Cal. 2025). “§§ 371 , 1001, 1343, 1344, 1349, 1503, 1512, 1519, 1521, 1621, 13 1622; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 230 , 2331). 14 Plaintiffs include requests for relief both throughout the body and at the end of the 15 Complaint.”
Motekaitis v. USI Ins. Servs. Nat'l, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025). “Section 230 4 A prior order in this case dismissed defamation claims against recipients of the Kane Email 5 who forwarded it to others, reasoning that 42 U.S.C. § 230 protected them as Internet publishers.”
Zango Inc v. Kaspersky Lab Inc (9th Cir. 2009). “42 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(2)(A). Zango did not adopt this argument.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) — 1 case
Holomaxx Tech. v. Microsoft Corp., 783 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “lability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information…”
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.