47 U.S.C. § 230

Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.(b) PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;(2) 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;(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).11 So in original. Probably should be “subparagraph (A).”(d) Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e) Effect on other laws(1) No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4) No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or(C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.(f) DefinitionsAs used in this section:(1) Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2) Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3) Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4) Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739; Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, referred to in subsec. (e)(4), is Pub. L. 99–508, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 2510 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and Tables.

Codification

Section 509 of Pub. L. 104–104, which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of Pub. L. 104–104 designating §§ 201 to 229 as part I and adding parts II (§ 251 et seq.) and III (§ 271 et seq.) to title II of the Act.

Amendments

2018—Subsec. (e)(5). Pub. L. 115–164 added par. (5).

1998—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 105–277, § 1404(a)(3), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 105–277, § 1404(a)(1), inserted “or 231” after “section 223”.

Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 105–277, § 1404(a)(2), redesignated subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–164, § 4(b), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 11, 2018], and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment.”

Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, see section 1406 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 223 of this title.

Savings

Pub. L. 115–164, § 7, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1255, provided that: “Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2018 Amendment note set out under section 1 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to limit or preempt any civil action or criminal prosecution under Federal law or State law (including State statutory law and State common law) filed before or after the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 11, 2018] that was not limited or preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.”

Sense of Congress

Pub. L. 115–164, § 2, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1253, provided that: “It is the sense of Congress that—“(1) section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230; commonly known as the ‘Communications Decency Act of 1996’) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims;“(2) websites that promote and facilitate prostitution have been reckless in allowing the sale of sex trafficking victims and have done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children and victims of force, fraud, and coercion; and“(3) clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites.”

Executive DocumentsExecutive Order No. 13925

Ex. Ord. No. 13925, May 28, 2020, 85 F.R. 34079, which related to moderation of content posted on social media platforms, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 14029, § 1, May 14, 2021, 86 F.R. 27025.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 828 cases (367 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Force v. Facebook, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Force v. Facebook, Inc. (2019) ca2 · cites it 52× “The district court dismissed the claims on the basis of 28 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(1), which bars civil liability for claims that “treat[]” 29 a “provider or user of an interactive computer service .”

Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs. Com, Inc. (2009) ca4 · cites it 20× “[2] *253 See 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(1), (e)(3), & (f)(3); Zeran v.”

Fair Housing Coun., San Fernando v. Roommates. Com (2008) ca9 · cites it 22× “The district court held that Roommate is immune under section 230 of the CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c), and dismissed the federal claims without considering whether Roommate's actions violated the FHA.”

Hill v. StubHub, Inc. (2012) ncctapp · cites it 50× “On appeal, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ “ticket scalping” claim is barred by 47 U.S.C. § 230 and that Defendant did not violate the “fee” provisions of N.”

G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc. (2023) ca7 · cites it 14× “We also ﬁnd that Salesforce is not entitled to dismissal under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 . We reverse the judgment of the district court and re- mand for further proceedings.”

Federal Trade Commission v. Accusearch Inc. (2009) ca10 · cites it 22× “On appeal Accusearch contends that (1) the FTC's unfair-practice claim should have been dismissed because Accusearch broke no law and because the FTC had no authority to enforce the Telecommunications Act; (2) it was immunized from suit by the protections provided websites in…”

Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google LLC (2021) ca9 · cites it 15× “The district court concluded that most of plaintiffs’ claims were barred pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the direct liability claims failed to adequately allege proximate cause.”

Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.Com, LLC (2016) ca1 · cites it 9× “See 47 U.S.C. § 230 . Congress later addressed the need to guard against the evils of sex trafficking when it enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), codified as relevant here at 18 U.”

Carly Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (2021) ca9 · cites it 13× “SNAP SUMMARY ** Communications Decency Act The panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing on the ground of immunity under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c)(1), an amended complaint brought against Snap, Inc.”

Doe v. America Online, Inc. (2001) fla · cites it 17× “[3] AOL moved to dismiss Doe's complaint and argued, inter alia, that Doe's claims were barred by 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Supp. II 1996), [4] in that section 230 prohibits civil actions that treat an interactive computer service as the "publisher or speaker" of messages transmitted…”

J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC (2015) wash · cites it 21× “’s state law claims under the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230 . 2 J.S. countered by arguing that Backpage is not immune from suit in part because its advertisement posting rules were “designed to help pimps develop advertisements that can evade…”

Federal Trade Commission v. LeadClick Media, LLC (2016) ca2 · cites it 7× “” 47 U.S.C. § 230 (b)(2); see also Zeran v.”

Show all 828 citing cases →

— 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) — 2 cases

Enhanced Athlete Inc. v. Google LLC (2020) cand

In Re Edwin K. Hunter (2025) tex

— 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) — 6 cases

Nunes v. Twitter, Inc. (2016) cand

Free Kick Master LLC v. Apple Inc. (2015) cand

James Domen v. Vimeo, Inc. (2021) ca2

The Estate of Albert Parreno, by and through Javier Garcia-Bengochea as Administrator v. AirBnB Inc. (2024) flmd

— 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2) — 1 case

James Domen v. Vimeo, Inc. (2021) ca2

— 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) — 1 case

Georgalis v. Facebook, Inc. (2018) ohnd

— 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(B) — 1 case

G (a minor) v. Salesforce.com, Inc. (2022) ilnd

— 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) — 1 case

State v. Clearview Ai (2026) vtsuperct

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.