Another Tough Section 230 Ruling For Ripoff Report–Vision Security v. Xcentric
22 09 2015Maybe Ripoff Report’s luck in court is finally running out. I recently blogged on a bizarre case in Iowa where the court held that Ripoff Report couldn’t claim Section 230 protection for contributions made by a guy named Meade. I explained:
The court doesn’t use terms like principal-agent to describe the Magedson/Meade relationship, but this ruling seems to head in that direction. The allegedly unusually close relationship between website and third party content submitter helps distinguish this from most Section 230 cases we see. It probably also distinguishes it from the more traditional user submissions where Ripoff Report relies upon Section 230.
A more recent ruling is way more troubling because it’s a direct hit on Section 230’s immunity. The ruling comes in response to Ripoff Report’s request for reconsideration of a September 11, 2014 ruling that I didn’t blog. This reconsideration opinion is unstinting in its hostility towards Section 230. My apologies for the long blockquote, but I think you’ll want to see the entire discussion (some citations omitted):
Case citation: Vision Security LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, 2:13-cv-00926-CW-BCW (D. Utah August 27, 2015). The complaint.
The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/09/another-tough-section-230-ruling-for-ripoff-report-vision-security-v-xcentric.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
