Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligenceliabilitystatuteharassmentregulation
litigationnegligence

Related Cases

Kambury v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 185 Or.App. 635, 60 P.3d 1103, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,486
View Case »
George v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 337 Ark. 206, 987 S.W.2d 710
View Case »
Fancyboy v. Alaska Village Elec. Co-op., Inc., 984 P.2d 1128
View Case »
Hinton v. Sportsman’s Guide, Inc., 285 So.3d 142, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,757
View Case »
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666, 70 USLW 4710, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5768, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7285, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 511
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 25 Media L. Rep. 2526, 10 Communications Reg. (P&F) 456

Facts

Kenneth Zeran filed a lawsuit against AOL after receiving numerous threatening phone calls due to defamatory messages posted on AOL's bulletin board by an unidentified individual. Zeran informed AOL about the situation, and while AOL assured him that the messages would be removed, they did not post retractions or adequately screen for similar postings. The messages led to a significant disruption in Zeran's life, including death threats and harassment, prompting him to seek legal recourse against AOL.

Issue

Whether the Communications Decency Act (CDA) bars Zeran's claims against AOL for negligence in handling defamatory content posted by a third party.

Whether the Communications Decency Act (CDA) bars Zeran's claims against AOL for negligence in handling defamatory content posted by a third party.

Rule

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to interactive computer service providers from liability for information provided by third-party users, as stated in 47 U.S.C. § 230.

The relevant portion of § 230 states: “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.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

Analysis

The court applied the CDA to Zeran's claims, determining that AOL, as an interactive computer service provider, was immune from liability for the defamatory messages posted by a third party. The court emphasized that the CDA was designed to protect service providers from being treated as publishers of third-party content, thereby encouraging free speech and self-regulation on the Internet. Zeran's argument that AOL had a duty to remove the content upon notice was rejected, as the court found that such liability would contradict the purpose of the CDA.

Because § 230 was successfully advanced by AOL in the district court as a defense to Zeran's claims, we shall briefly examine its operation here. Zeran seeks to hold AOL liable for defamatory speech initiated by a third party. He argued to the district court that once he notified AOL of the unidentified third party's hoax, AOL had a duty to remove the defamatory posting promptly, to notify its subscribers of the message's false nature, and to effectively screen future defamatory material. Section 230 entered this litigation as an affirmative defense pled by AOL. The company claimed that Congress immunized interactive computer service providers from claims based on information posted by a third party.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the CDA barred Zeran's claims against AOL, as the statute applies to any complaint filed after its effective date, regardless of when the relevant conduct occurred.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Who won?

America Online, Inc. (AOL) prevailed in the case because the court found that the Communications Decency Act provided them immunity from liability for the defamatory content posted by a third party.

You must be