Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline

from the this-should-be-watched dept

We all know the importance of Section 230 safe harbors that protect a service provider from actions done by its users. While there have been a few cases that chipped away at those protections, on the whole, they're quite solid. However, Eric Goldman brings us the story of how some lawyers seem to be dealing with this. They've stopped suing the sites directly, but they then file a lawsuit against the party who actually created the content they want taken down -- but if that person does not show up in court, then the suing party can get a default judgment, and then use that default judgment to get the content taken offline -- since the default judgment can be used to enforce injunctions against third parties. From the perspective of the suing party, then, they have every incentive in the world to try to get a default judgment, rather than even fighting with the real person in court. Then, with the default judgment, they can force a site to take down the content. As Goldman notes:

For the price of a complaint and a defendant's default (which can be engineered by targeting a phantom author), plaintiffs obtain an effective cudgel to excise unwanted content throughout the web.

That's not a good thing.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Levi Johnston's Lawyers Threaten Twitter, Despite No Legal Basis

from the the-law?-what's-that? dept

Last week, Conan O'Brien had William Shatner stop by and read what was believed (at the time) to be twitter messages by Levi Johnston, the former boyfriend to Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol (and father of Bristol's child). O'Brien has done this before, having Shatner read out Sarah Palin's twitter messages, as spoken word poetry. It's an amusing gimmick. The only problem this time around was that the tweets weren't actually by Johnston, but an impostor. O'Brien quickly apologized. Fair enough.

However, what caught my attention was that Johnston's lawyers didn't just threaten O'Brien, but they threatened Twitter itself:

"My client, Levi Johnston, is being impersonated on your media (Twitter) and this is leading to libel and slanderous statements being attributed to him. ... We want you to put an immediate end to this illegal activity. ... You are being used as a medium to promote this illegality and we want immediate action. ... You are now on notice and must take steps to put an end to what is clearly against the law and against your policy. ... We want to know what steps you will be taking to correct what is clearly a problem which is escalating."

Now, you can understand why they were upset, and Twitter is usually pretty good at responding to such requests and disabling the accounts (sometimes even going too far). However, the claim that Twitter is now "on notice and must take steps" to end the account is simply not true. Twitter, as the service provider, is protected against such claims and has no specific obligation under the law to change things, no matter how much "notice" his lawyers give. You would think that Johnston's lawyers would understand that -- and that they would be aware of earlier attempts, like the one by Tony La Russa to blame Twitter for an impostor, in which La Russa was forced to learn why Twitter is not liable.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Teaches Cook County Sheriff About Section 230, Dismisses Case Against Craigslist

from the but,-boy-those-headlines... dept

Earlier this year, we noted that Cook County (Illinois) sheriff Thomas Dart appeared to be totally unfamiliar with the law when he sued Craigslist for prostitution. As was pretty clear at the time, Craigslist is the service provider and is quite obviously protected by Section 230 immunity. Besides, law enforcement officials who actually care about dealing with prostitution, rather than just generating headlines have figured out that it makes sense to use Craigslist as a tool to help track and combat prostitution.

Even after all of this was clearly explained to Sheriff Dart, he still insisted that his lawsuit made sense. It looks like the court system, however, does not agree. As expected, the case has been dismissed on Section 230 grounds. The decision (pdf) goes through a lengthy discussion on various cases on Section 230, but concludes reasonably:

Sheriff Dart may continue to use Craigslist's website to identify and pursue individuals who post allegedly unlawful content... But he cannot sue Craigslist for their conduct.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IAB Takes On FTC Over Silly Blogger Disclosure Rules

from the good-for-them dept

While more disclosure is generally a good thing, the FTC's new guidelines for blogging disclosure have some pretty massive problems, and probably aren't legal. As more and more people are recognizing this -- and interviews with the FTC folks in charge of this suggest they either haven't put very much thought into this issue or they don't quite know how the world works outside of their government cocoon -- the backlash is growing. Now, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped in with quite the open letter to the FTC, asking them to scrap the rules, while noting (snarkily) how impossible they are to follow, in practice:

So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed -- which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog -- a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I'd just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I'd pulled from my favorite cookbook, Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the "post" button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.

I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.

While this may seem silly, it really does highlight the problems with the FTC's rules. They're totally unclear and absolutely could concern things like this. Getting a free book here or there happens all the time -- and the FTC actually claimed that if people don't return them, then they may face sanctions. That's ridiculous. Last month, we ran a fun contest for people to win free copies of a Kevin Smith book. If the winners from our comments mention that book anywhere online, do they need to mention they got the book for free? If they mention it to a friend, do they need to do the same thing? Because most of the time when posting stuff online, people really are just talking to their friends.

Again, it's not clear why people can't just sort this out themselves. People who post bogus reviews of things because someone pays them to, or because of something "free," are going to get called out on it eventually and lose their credibility. When people talk amongst friends, they don't reveal where they got the products they talk about, or if they happened to get a promotional sample -- and that's fine. While you can understand where the FTC is coming from, it really has gone overboard with these rules.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Problems With The FTC's New Disclosure Rules: Free Speech And Liability Problems

from the disclose-everything dept

I've already noted my general problems the FTC's new disclosure rules, but as others look into the details, the worse they seem and the more you realize the unintended consequences may be pretty bad. Jeff Jarvis makes some key points concerning how this could be seen as a restriction on free speech. And that's because the FTC seems to be viewing blog posts as if they are media, rather than straightforward communication. As we've pointed out in the past, for many, blogging is often no different than a conversation. It's not journalism. It's not reporting. It's having a discussion with people:

Second, the FTC assumes -- as media people do -- that the internet is a medium. It's not. It's a place where people talk. Most people who blog, as Pew found in a survey a few years ago, don't think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism. I imagine that virtually no one on Facebook thinks they're making media. They're connecting. They're talking. So for the FTC to go after bloggers and social media -- as they explicitly do -- is the same as sending a government goon into Denny's to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed.

As such, you could make a case that the new rules are an unconstitutional law hindering First Amendment guarantees on freedom of speech. As I noted originally, it seems like these things get sorted out in the marketplace of ideas -- whereby those who do something so stupid as to sell their "views" on things face the potential of a substantial loss in credibility. But suddenly demanding people reveal the sourcing of some product they mention in blogs leads to all sorts of silly results, amusingly mocked by Mark Cuban in a blog post, where he wonders what sorts of disclosures he'll have to make if he mentions a breakfast at IHOP where the managers comps the breakfast. And while he's mocking the overall situation, it's not so silly. You shouldn't have to confer with your lawyers to figure out how you mention any particular product, just because you got a freebie or a sample somewhere.

And, what's really scary? It appears that even the FTC isn't sure what the policy actually means, and hasn't thought through any of the unintended consequences or fuzzy borders.

Separately, Eric Goldman highlights another massive problem with the new guidelines that no one else seems to have picked up on yet: that in some cases it's the company providing the product that will be liable -- ridiculously blaming the company if a blogger makes claims about its products that are not true. As Goldman points out, there's no way the FTC would be successful in going after companies for that, as Section 230 clearly would protect the advertiser from bogus statements by someone else. But, even assuming that the FTC never considered the Section 230 issues, why would the FTC ever think it's reasonable to fine an advertiser for statements made by someone else?

Despite tons of feedback and discussion when the FTC first proposed these new rules a few months ago, it really feels like no one at the FTC put much time into actually thinking through what these sorts of rules would actually mean in the real world.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Even After Being Disbarred, Jack Thompson Can File Misguided Mistargeted Lawsuits

from the good-luck,-Jack dept

Ah, Jack Thompson. The lawyer who made a name for himself years ago by trying to misdirect the blame for pretty much any violent action by any teenager by claiming that it was "the video games' fault" has since been disbarred, and last we heard was getting scolded by Utah state politicians -- the one state where politicians were still putting up with his unsubstantiated claims. And, of course, through it all he continues to claim that everyone is out to get him -- with various video game blogs being a favorite target.

Of course, even though he's been disbarred, it doesn't mean he can't continue filing misguided lawsuits on a pro se basis -- and that's what he's done now. Eric Goldman alerts us to the news that Jack Thompson is now suing Facebook because some people on Facebook have said some mean stuff about him. Now, there's no doubt that some people online have said incredibly mean and hateful things about Jack, and may have made statements that are potentially threatening. But, apparently, while filing all of these lawsuits and getting disbarred, Jack Thompson never bothered to read Section 230 of the CDA, which protects the service provider (such as, say, Facebook) from the actions of its users. Details, apparently, are not Thompson's strong suit:

There's a bit in there where he suggests that there's some massive organized campaign against him, rather than just a bunch of random people having fun with him, because they appear to think he's a bit out to lunch.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another Good Section 230 Ruling: Forum Owner Not Liable For Posts

from the good-to-see dept

It's good to see judges getting things right -- and more often than not, they're being both quick and smart when it comes to misguided lawsuits from plaintiffs against sites that host content, but don't publish it. The latest involves the owners of a bodybuilding forum website, bodybuilding.com, who were sued by a nutritional supplement maker, claiming that competitors had posted negative reviews on the site. But the judge tossed out the lawsuit against the forum operator using section 230. The supplement maker tried to argue that the forum owners had teamed up with the competitor in a conspiracy to say bad things about the supplement, but the judge didn't buy it. The only question was whether the website owners posted the content. They didn't. There's no case.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Twitter, WordPress, Ning & GoDaddy All Sued In Mistargeted Lawsuit Over Defamation

from the someone-please-learn-section-230 dept

Last week, a lawsuit involving an allegedly defamatory Twitter message about a landlord made the news. This week, we've got another defamation suit involving another Twitter message and a condo building, but the situation here is quite different. First, if the alleged facts are true, it does sound like it could be defamation. It involves some condo owners, and who used Twitter, blogs and other websites to apparently accuse the condo board president of a variety of things including "murder, bribery, extortion, illicit payoffs, and corruption." Assuming those things are untrue, it would appear that the guy targeted by all this, Daniel Neiditch, has a decent defamation claim.

However, rather than just sue those folks responsible for the message, Neiditch's lawyers appear to have sued pretty much every company that these messages could loosely be associated with, including Twitter, WordPress, Ning, and GoDaddy. As Sam Bayard notes in the link, it appears that Neiditch's lawyers appear not to know about Section 230 of the CDA. That's a pretty big one for your lawyers to miss when filing a lawsuit like this. Ultimately, all four of those companies should have the case easily dismissed under Section 230, but it will be a waste of time and money in the meantime.

Of course, even if they were totally unaware of Section 230, basic common sense should tell you that these sites, hosting the content (or the domain, in the case of GoDaddy) should never be responsible for what was written on those sites. Going after them as a part of the lawsuit appears to be a blatant money grab, by trying to tie any company to the lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous the connection is between the actual action and the company. There really ought to be sanctions against lawyers who do such things, because it happens way too often.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Filmmaker Sues Websites After Commenters Cost Him A Job

from the misdirected dept

Over the years, we've been threatened with lawsuits a few too many times -- almost always due to something that someone said in our comments. The pace of those threats has certainly increased over the years, but most are nothing more than angry bluster. In the few cases where it appears to be someone serious, we have our lawyers explain to them Section 230 in rather plain language, noting that suing us for something said by others in our forums will (1) get thrown out of court incredibly quickly and (2) probably only serve to bring a lot more attention to the comments they're so pissed off about. To date, this has always worked quite well.

Of course, other countries don't have Section 230 safe harbors, and so you get a lot more ridiculous lawsuits with someone blaming a forum owner for what people say in that forum. Hopefully, common sense prevails in those cases too... but you never know. A bunch of folks have sent in the story of a lawsuit in Australia where a filmmaker is suing some online forums for comments in those forums that the filmmaker believes cost him a job. Apparently, some folks agreed to a deal with him to produce a certain movie, but after finding those comments, they pulled out of the deal.

First of all, the filmmaker, Greg Smith, appears to be suing the wrong parties. Rather than those who actually made the comments, he's suing the owners of the web forums where the comments occurred. And, on top of that, he never contacted those forum owners about the comments in the first place (at least one says that the first he knew about the complaints was when the lawsuit was filed -- at which point he immediately removed the comments anyway). And, of course, all this has really served to do is call a lot more attention to the comments about Smith (and the way he handles such things).

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Death Of InfomercialScams.com

from the tragic-ending dept

Paul Alan Levy from Public Citizen has a detailed (and somewhat tragic) story of why the site InfomercialScams is no longer in existence, and the domains of the site are now owned by Video Professor, a company notorious for threatening online critics, such as those commenting on sites like InfomercialScams. The full story is rather involved, but the short version is that the original owner of InfomercialScams sold the site. The new owner instituted something it called its "Consumer Protection Program," where it tried to get those critiqued on the site to pay. What was gained by paying is somewhat in dispute, but one can see how it could be seen as extortion. The new owners of InfomercialScams apparently (alleged by Video Professor, but denied by Infomercial Scams) offered to sell companies "immunity" from criticism, and also would drive more traffic to criticism of companies that didn't pay up. If true, this is certainly distasteful and potentially illegal.

Video Professor sued, claiming that it also took away any Section 230 protections that had previously protected the site. As Levy notes, that would make for an interesting legal discussion, but could be troubling if it were found to be true. Either way, it's not an issue any more, as the owner of the site eventually settled, and appears to have handed over the site as a part of that settlement. However, what's still troubling is that Video Professor also sued InfomercialScams' original owner, Justin Leonard, despite him having absolutely nothing to do with the new policies on the site (or anything to do with the site at all since selling it). As part of the settlement with the new owners, Video Professor also presented a settlement to Leonard, which would have made him "promise not to disparage Video Professor -- or to host disparaging comments on any web site."

Considering he shouldn't have been a part of the lawsuit in the first place and the troubling implications of such a settlement on Leonard's ability to post what could be a perfectly legal site that could potentially host such comments, Leonard has refused to settle and is fighting his inclusion. This is a sad story all around. The original site, which raised some important questions about Video Professor's infomercial practices, is now gone due, in part, to what appears to be poor decisions by its new owners. But, at the same time, the attack on Leonard, the original owner, and the settlement demands just seem totally out of place. Especially given that Video Professor now has taken control over InformercialScams and all its related websites, it seems that the market is ripe for a new site that fairly discusses what infomercial vendors are pitching.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says Anti-Malware Software Maker Immune From Lawsuit From Zango

from the thank-you-section-230 dept

Infamous adware maker Zango may finally be dead, but its lawsuits live on. You may recall a few years back Zango sued security software maker Kaspersky for calling its product "spyware." A court found that Kaspersky has every right to label the software as it feels is appropriate, noting that it's immune from complaints from Zango under section 230 of the CDA.

Zango appealed, claiming that Kaspersky shouldn't be immune because the CDA was only supposed to apply to websites, not software makers. The 9th circuit appeals court clearly disagrees and points out that this is exactly the sort of thing Section 230 should protect. It's always nice to see courts reaffirm the immunity granted by Section 230 -- especially since those protections have been under attack lately. Update: Eric Goldman has more.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If You Get Shot, You Don't Get To Blame Craigslist For Hosting An Ad For The Gun Dealer Where The Shooter Bought The Gun

from the wow dept

We've discussed in the past what we refer to as "Steve Dallas lawsuits." The name comes from an old Bloom County comic strip (which to date, I've been unable to find online, but recall pretty clearly in my head -- but, uh, internet help me out -- can anyone find a copy of this strip? -- see update below), following a storyline where the character Steve Dallas is punched out by actor Sean Penn for trying to take Penn's photo. In the strip, Dallas (a lawyer) discusses who to sue for his injuries from the attack. He rules out most of the obvious candidates for one reason or another (including Penn), before finally settling on the manufacturer of his camera (if I remember correctly, it was Nikon) for failing to put a warning label on the camera, that taking pictures of celebrities may lead to them beating you up. The point: you always sue some big company, no matter how tangentially related to the case, because they're the ones with the money. Update: The punchout storyline begins here, and the actual "who to sue" comic was printed a couple months later here. My memory was slightly off. It wasn't "Nikon" but the company was the made up name "Nikolta" (a mix of Nikon and Minolta, I guess). Still, pretty good memory for something that was printed 23 years ago. Thanks for the help in the comments finding it!

Hence, "Steve Dallas lawsuits." However, in all of the past such lawsuits we've discussed around here, I don't think I've ever seen one that was as big a stretch as this one. A guy who got shot sued Craigslist, because apparently the shooter bought his gun from a gun dealer who advertised on Craigslist. Think about that for a second. At this point we're already twice removed from a reasonable defendant. Could you make an argument against the gun dealer? Even that seems like a stretch (though I'm not all that familiar with gun laws these days). But to go even further and blame Craigslist? That seems preposterous. And, thankfully, the court agreed. It quickly tossed out the lawsuit on Section 230 safe harbors, but you have to wonder if that was even needed, given the fact that Craigslist had nothing at all to do with the shooting.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Public Citizen, EFF, CDT And CMLP Team Up To Question Recent Ruling On Section 230 Safe Harbor

from the this-is-important dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about a court ruling that said that Yahoo was protected against actions by users, thanks to Section 230 safeharbors, but that the company had effectively given up some of that protection by promising to remove some content. While the bigger issues in the case seemed to have been decided reasonably, some noticed that many of the finer points in the ruling were both sloppy and troubling. Eric Goldman ran down the details of the problems with the ruling. Now it appears that Yahoo is appealing not the major point of the case, but those specific troubling points made in the ruling, which could severely limit the effectiveness of using Section 230 to protect against frivolous lawsuits.

The issue may certainly sound like inside baseball, but it's important to anyone who runs an online service of any kind. Traditionally, when receiving a mistargeted lawsuit that tries to pin liability on a service provider, rather than the actual user, it's common to file a motion to dismiss based on section 230 safe harbors. However, in this ruling, the court said that you couldn't raise section 230 in a motion to dismiss, and that it could only be used as an "answer" and thus required a more involved (and potentially much more costly) procedure of asking the court for a ruling in the case, rather than just a dismissal. That would significantly raise the cost to many site owners in trying to dismiss these sorts of mistargeted lawsuits. It's nice to see a long list of defenders of the public and the internet sign on to explain to the court why this dicta is incorrect. Public Citizen, EFF, CDT and the Citizen Media Law Project all joined in with an amicus brief. Hopefully the court realizes the earlier sloppy ruling was a mistake, and the ability to dismiss using Section 230 safe harbors remains.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, You Don't Get To Sue Facebook Because Your Account Got Hacked

from the sorry,-try-again dept

A guy in Florida has apparently sued Facebook because his account got hacked and started sending out links to a virus. He's claiming that the site failed to protect its users, and he's upset that, even though he got his account back, he lost his photos and had to re-add his friends. He's only asking for $70.50 ($0.30 for every friend he had to re-add), which got a bit of a joking response from Facebook:

"We're very interested to hear how he came up with the figure of $70.50," Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt wrote in an e-mail to CNET News. "He's not going to get it but we promise to refund all the money he paid to use Facebook. Seriously, we're glad to know how important Facebook is to Mr. Karantsalis but his account was not disabled, is currently active, and he is using it, so I'm not sure what the problem is."

Facebook can afford to laugh since the case appears to have no legal merit. Section 230 clearly protects Facebook from liability in this situation (as it should), and the case law on similar cases backs that up. In fact, Eric Goldman notes that: "If anything, Karantsalis might be on the hook to Facebook for filing such a meritless lawsuit." The guy claims he filed the lawsuit to make a point, but the point he may end up making is that you shouldn't file frivolous lawsuits just because you don't like how things happened.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Are AGs Targeting Craigslist Rather Than Newspapers Or Other Websites?

from the makes-no-sense... dept

With Craigslist caving on how it manages its "adult" ads, we've noted that some politicians are still angry, despite having been a part of the group that bought into the agreement Craigslist made with them six months ago. However, since this really has everything to do with two AGs who are running for governor of their states, rather than any real attempt to stop any illegal activity, they have to keep grandstanding. Henry McMaster, AG of South Carolina (and candidate for governor) has been among the worst, threatening to file criminal charges against Craigslist management to put them in jail. Of course, even the most basic legal analysis shows that McMaster has absolutely no case -- and, in fact, the "deadline" that McMaster put in place last Friday came and went without McMaster actually doing anything.

However, he's still talking a big game -- and it looks like Craigslist has had enough of letting him get away with blaming them for everything. The company's CEO, Jim Buckmaster, has taken to the Craigslist blog to ask why they're being targeted when various newspapers in South Carolina have many more such "questionable" ads that are often a lot more explicit and graphic than those on Craigslist. The post lists out a variety of South Carolina newspapers and how many adult ads they have, noting that McMaster doesn't seem to be going after any of them and threatening to throw their execs in jail. Following that, he put up a separate post asking for a retraction and an apology from McMaster for his misguided accusations.

Meanwhile, the folks over at Digg are making a really good point. If grandstanding politicians are going to blame Craigslist for those murders in Boston where the killer used Craigslist to find victims, how come now one is yelling "blame AOL!" after a woman was killed by a guy she met via AOL instant messenger. In this day and age, it's quite depressing that people in positions of authority still seem to think the tool is to blame, rather than the individuals who use them.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Craigslist Gives In To Misplaced AG Anger... Again

from the what-are-you-going-to-do... dept

Back in November, a bunch of Attorneys General forced Craiglsist to change how it managed its "erotic services" category. The whole campaign by these AGs to blame Craigslist for the fact that prostitutes used the service was aimed at the wrong target -- smart law enforcement officials recognized that they could use Craigslist as a tool to fight prostitution. And, of course, the original changes to Craigslist did little if anything to stop prostitution. Instead, they just made that prostitution move elsewhere, making it more difficult for law enforcement to track it down and deal with it. It's difficult to see how that's smart policy.

Yet, even with the changes -- which required those posting to the erotic services category to use a credit card (and pay $5) to prove their identity -- some prostitution ads were getting through. Once again, though, this should have been seen as great news for law enforcement. That's because now it was even easier to track down those involved in prostitution. So what happened? You guessed it. The AGs continued to freak out and insist that Craigslist was somehow to blame, even threatening to put Craigslist execs into jail. Yes, seriously.

Given all of this, it's disappointing, though hardly surprising, that Craigslist has caved in and agreed that it will now have people on staff preview every ad in the erotic services category to make sure it's "okay." Also, according to at least one report, the new "adult services" (rather than "erotic services") group will cost advertisers $10 instead of $5 -- and unlike the in original agreement, this time the money apparently may not go to charity. There really is absolutely no legal basis for this move. The AGs would have had no case (hello Section 230!), but given the public pressure from the AGs and the fact that Craigslist probably was getting sick of answering this question, it gave in.

Of course, it's difficult to see how this ends well. Prostitution will continue. It will just move to other websites, where it will be that much more difficult for law enforcement to track it and respond to it. This move will also -- unfortunately -- empower AGs to once again abuse their public platform to pressure companies into doing things with absolutely no legal basis whatsoever. We saw it last year with Andrew Cuomo forcing ISPs to drop Usenet, and now that more AGs are learning how this process works, expect to see more de facto gov't censorship, as various AGs use the press and bogus threats to pressure websites into shutting down or changing sites.

And, of course, given that it only took six months for the AGs to demand even more from Craigslist, how much do people want to bet that it won't be all that long until those same AGs start complaining about Craigslist yet again? Especially now that Craigslist has agreed to have employees review every ad in that section, they'll probably start blaming Craigslist if any questionable ads get through. Even though Section 230 (again) has said that moderating content doesn't increase liability, since those AGs have been ignoring Section 230 all along anyway, you can bet they'll ignore it again, and suggest Craigslist is even more liable, even though they were the ones who forced Craigslist to make this change in the first place.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Ruling: Section 230 Protects Sites... But Not Necessarily If They Promise To Remove Content

from the giving-up-your-safe-harbor dept

An interesting court ruling has added a wrinkle to section 230 safe harbors that protect a website from being liable for actions of its users. In this case, Yahoo was given immunity due to section 230, but may still be in trouble because a Yahoo employee promised to remove the content in question. The case involved a guy who posted profiles of his ex-girlfriend on Yahoo sites. The profiles in question included nude photos the ex-boyfriend had taken and her (real) contact info. He then posed as her in chat rooms and pointed men to her profile leading to numerous unwanted phone calls. Yahoo was apparently quite slow in responding to her complaints, but eventually someone promised to "take care of" the issue. However, two more months went by and nothing happened, so the woman sued (at which point the profiles were finally removed).

Now, it's pretty bad that Yahoo was slow to remove the profiles, but it still seems like the woman's case should have been against the ex-boyfriend who posted the profiles. That, of course, is the whole point of Section 230, so that the service/tool provider is not blamed for the actions of an individual, even though that individual is still responsible. There was some question over whether or not Section 230 still applied since this wasn't a defamation case, but the court (correctly) ruled that section 230 applies to much more than just defamation.

However, the more interesting part is that the court noted that since a Yahoo rep indicated she would "take care of" things, she may have established a separate "contract" outside of section 230 safe harbors, which was then violated. So... the lesson is, if you want to keep your safe harbors, don't promise stuff and fail to live up to it...

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

South Carolina Wants To Put Craigslist Management In Jail?

from the craig-doesn't-strike-me-as-the-jailhouse-type... dept

In the latest in an increasingly long line of misplaced attacks on Craigslist, South Carolina's Attorney General Henry McMaster is now threatening the company's principals with criminal charges because of how some folks have used the site. Someone should send McMaster a copy of section 230 of the CDA. You would think that a state Attorney General might... you know... know the law, before threatening to put people in jail. McMaster, of course, is running for governor of the state, so he likely sees this as a grandstanding opportunity -- just like he recently massively overhyped the risks of online predators. Someone else submitted the fact that McMaster also was so upset that a study that he (and most other state AGs) requested on the risks of online predators showed that the risks were greatly overstated that, rather than admit he was wrong, he withdrew from the workgroup studying the issue. This does not appear to be a fact-based individual. When presented with evidence, he simply says it can't be true.

In this case, he's accusing Craigslist of being involved with prostitution, even though plenty of other (smarter) law enforcement officials have recognized that Craigslist is actually a useful tool in fighting prostitution, rather than a problem. He also claims that Craigslist management may be criminally liable due to "sexually explicit" photos hosted on the site. Except... as the link above points out, as long as the content isn't "obscene" (and McMaster presents no evidence that it is), then it's perfectly legal, and protected by the First Amendment. The whole thing stinks of a politician grandstanding by displaying his own ignorance of both technology and the law... all while running for governor.

85 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Inducement Standard For Section 230 Could Put A Significant Chill On Innovation

from the uh-oh... dept

We've talked in the past about the importance of various "safe harbor" rules that help maintain that liability for any sort of lawbreaking is actually placed on the lawbreaker, rather than any tool provider/middleman used to break the law. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need such safe harbors, because it should be obvious: the person who breaks the law is guilty, while the person who makes tools that are used to break the law is not guilty. That's just common sense... but apparently not common enough. We were already quite troubled by the Supreme Court's surprising and disturbing decision to create a new "inducement" standard that chips away at the DMCA's safe harbors, but no such "inducement" standard has been applied to Section 230's safe harbors, which protects service providers from most non-copyright law-breaking by users.

Until now, that is.

Eric Goldman points out that in a recent ruling in a lawsuit between the New England Patriots and Stubhub, it appears that a court has suddenly come up with an "inducement" standard for section 230 as well, despite most other court rulings (with one major exception) giving pretty broad protections to any service provider. In this case, which we've discussed before, the New England Patriots were furious that season ticket holders might resell some of their tickets on StubHub, and even had a court force StubHub to hand over the names of its users (despite this being a massive privacy violation that also violates StubHub's own terms of service). While an earlier ruling indicated StubHub was protected by the section 230 safe harbors, this latest ruling says it's not, in part because StubHub knows about, helps and profits from ticket scalping on the site.

This is troubling for a variety of reasons. It still involves putting liability on a party who doesn't actually break the law. Furthermore, when using a standard that involves looking at whether or not the company profits from the law breaking, you effectively kill all safe harbors. Any commercial service provider, almost by default, will profit in some way from the law breaking, but that shouldn't make them liable for it. Also, as we've see quite clearly with the inducement standard encroaching on DMCA safe harbors, those on the other side of lawsuits will continue to try to stretch and twist the contours of what counts as "inducement." If this stands, it will create massive potential liabilities for online service providers, and there will be lots of expensive lawsuits. The end result will be a greatly chilled market for innovation.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Illinois Sheriff Sues Craigslist For Prostitution; Apparently Unaware Of The Law

from the lookup-section-230-please... dept

If you're the sheriff, aren't you supposed to understand at least the basics of the law? Apparently not in Cook County, Illinois. Sheriff Thomas Dart is now suing Craigslist because it's "the single largest source of prostitution in the nation." Of course, we've been through some of this before. Atlanta's mayor mistakenly blamed Craigslist for prostitution a while back, but didn't do anything about it. Some Attorneys General were threatening to do stuff, so Craigslist finally changed its policies last year. Of course, as expected, all that did was make prostitutes disperse to other sites. In other words: same amount of prostitution, just a lot more difficult to catch.

There have been some officials who recognize this. Some police officers have realized that Craigslist certainly isn't to blame, and is, in fact, a great tool for tracking and catching prostitutes. Hell, even Dart's own staff has regularly used Craigslist as a tool to crack down on prostitution. His own office says it's used Craigslist to bust at least 75 prostitutes in the last 18 months. Rather than suing Craigslist, he should be thanking Craigslist for making it so easy to catch these prostitutes. It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will go very far. Craigslist is almost certainly protected by Section 230 safe harbors as the service provider. You would think that a sheriff that used the tool successfully for so long could recognize this... but apparently Dart would rather it be more difficult to find and arrest prostitutes.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..