Free for a Fee

This was a really interesting pro se challenge to Section 230. The lower court opinion contained all kinds of gems, including holding that Section 230 applies to Google’s autocomplete and to allegations of search engine manipulation.

The Third Circuit’s opinion washes out some of the case’s detail, making it a little less interesting. This partially reflects that the legal questions were so easy, the case only warranted a non-precedential opinion. The court summarizes its key ruling:

The District Court correctly determined that all of the defendants were alleged by Obado to be internet host providers who provided an interactive computer service, as defined by the CDA; that the allegedly actionable content originated from other information content providers, namely Mama Duka and Diop Kamau; and that the defendants were treated in the second amended complaint as publishers of the allegedly actionable content. When these conditions are met, the CDA’s immunity applies.

As I’ve said before, there should be only one and only one defendant for problematic online content–the content originator. Everyone else should get Section 230 immunity.

The court then quickly dismissed Obado’s other arguments:

* “Obado’s allegation that the defendants manipulated search engines to maximize search results relating to the alleged defamatory content does not affect their immunity from suit.”

more

Case citation: Obado v. Magedson, No. 14-3584 (3d Cir. May 11, 2015).

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/05/ripoff-report-gets-easy-section-230-win-in-third-circuit-obado-v-magedson.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.