Yahoo not liable for blocking marketing email
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230) shields Yahoo’s spam filtering efforts Holomaxx v. Yahoo, 2011 WL 865794 (N.D.Cal. March 11, 2011) Plaintiff provides email marketing services...
View ArticleAmazon and other booksellers off the hook for sale of Obama drug use book
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Books-A-Million from some, but not all claims brought over promotion and sale of scandalous book about presidential...
View ArticleCommunications Decency Act shields Backpage from liability for violation of...
Three Jane Doe plaintiffs, who alleged they were victims of sex trafficking, filed suit against online classified ad provider Backpage.com (“Backpage”), asserting that Backpage violated the federal...
View ArticleFacebook’s Terms of Service protect it from liability for offensive fake account
Someone set up a bogus Facebook account and posted, without consent, images and video of Plaintiff engaged in a lewd act. Facebook finally deleted the account, but not until two days had passed and...
View ArticleYelp not liable for allegedly defamatory customer reviews
In a recent case having an outcome that should surprise no one, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision that held Yelp immune from liability under...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Google and YouTube protected by Section 230
The case of Weerahandi v. Shelesh is a classic example of how Section 230 (a provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), found at 47 USC 230) shielded online intermediaries from alleged tort...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Anti-malware provider immune under CDA for calling competitor’s product a...
Plaintiff anti-malware software provider sued defendant – who also provides software that protects internet users from malware, adware etc. – bringing claims for false advertising under the Section...
View ArticleSection 230 protected Google in lawsuit over blog post
Defendant used Google’s Blogger service to write a post – about plaintiffs’ business practices – that plaintiffs found objectionable. So plaintiffs sued Google in federal court for defamation, tortious...
View ArticleSection 230 protected Twitter from liability for deleting Senate candidate’s...
Plaintiff (an Arizona senate candidate) sued Twitter after it suspended four of plaintiff’s accounts. He brought claims for (1) violation of the First Amendment; (2) violation of federal election law;...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Intellectual property exception to CDA 230 immunity did not apply in case...
Plaintiff sued Google for false advertising and violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act over Google’s provision of Adwords services for other defendants’ website, which plaintiff claimed sold...
View Article