1 ONLINE DEFAMATION: BRINGING THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996 IN LINE WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY Ryan W. King 1 Duke University School of Law According to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a provider of an interactive computer service cannot be held liable for publishing a defamatory statement made by another party. In addition, the service provider cannot be held liable for refusing to remove the statement from its service. This article postulates that such immunity from producer and distributor liability is a suspect public policy, and argues that the statute should be amended to include a broad definition of development and a take-down and put-back provision. INTRODUCTION 1 The Communications Decency Act of 1996 ( CDA ) should be amended to include a broad definition of development and a take-down and put-back provision. In the twenty-first century, sixteen percent of Americans have broadband Internet access in their homes, 2 ninety-five percent of libraries provide Internet access to their patrons, 3 and seventy-seven percent of elementary and secondary schools provide Internet access to their students. 4 In addition, it is estimated that the percentage of American adults who use the Internet more than tripled from 1996 to Despite these developments, Congress has yet to amend the CDA, which endows a provider of an interactive computer service with immunity from publisher and distributor tort liability. Under the statute, the service provider may select and publish a defamatory statement made by another party and may refuse to remove the statement from its service even after it knows that the statement is false. Conversely, under the common law, a provider of a traditional information service is liable if it publishes or distributes defamatory material. This distinction between e-providers and traditional providers is suspect because it is inherently based on an outdated policy decision. 1 Mr. King is a second-year Juris Doctor candidate at Duke University School of Law. He graduated from Brigham Young University in 2002 with a Bachelor s of Science in Economics. Mr. King wishes to thank his wife, Laura, and daughter, Kylie, for their love and inspiration. 2 PEW INTERNET & AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT, ADOPTION OF BROADBAND TO THE HOME: A PEW INTERNET PROJECT DATA MEMO, 1 (May 2003), available at 3 THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, E.D. TABS: PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED STATES, FISCAL YEAR 2000, tbl. 6 (July 2002), available at 4 THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, INTERNET ACCESS IN U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CLASSROOMS: , tbl. 2 (May 2001), available at 5 Harris Interactive, The Harris Poll #8: Those with Internet Access to Continue to Grow but at a Slower Rate, tbl. 1 (Feb. 5, 2003), at
2 THE COMMON LAW TORT OF DEFAMATION 2 The common law tort of defamation provides a legal remedy to those injured by gossip. Specifically, an individual is subject to liability if he or she damages another person s reputation by speaking or publishing false statements about that person to a third party. 6 Defamatory statements have the potential to tarnish a person s morality or integrity, or even to discredit a person s financial standing in the community. 7 A person found guilty of making a defamatory statement is assessed the monetary value of the harm caused by his or her statement. 8 In addition, the plaintiff in a defamation action has the burden of proving the elements of the tort. 9 3 An entity that publishes or distributes a defamatory statement made by another person is also liable. 10 An entity, such as a newspaper, that repeats or otherwise republishes a defamatory statement is subject to publisher liability because the injured party is harmed every time the statement is repeated. 11 However, an entity, such as a bookstore, that only distributes or transmits a defamatory statement, is subject to distributor liability only if the entity knew or should have known that the statement was defamatory. 12 A distributor should know that a statement is defamatory if a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the [distributor] would ascertain [the nature of the statement]. 13 THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF The CDA was created in large part to protect children from objectionable online material. 14 In Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 15 Prodigy was held liable for publishing defamatory statements on one of its online bulletin boards; 16 the statements were placed on the board by one of Prodigy s customers. 17 The court reasoned that Prodigy was the publisher of all statements made on the bulletin board because Prodigy frequently monitored the information on the service and removed offensive material. 18 This holding concerned Congress. They worried that such a rule would deter a provider of an interactive computer service from removing objectionable material from its services that are frequented by minors because 6 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 558 (1977). 7 Id. at 559 cmt. b. 8 Id. at Id. at Id. at 578, Id. at 578 & cmt. b, illus Id. at 581 & cmt. e. 13 Id. at 12 (2), 581 cmt. c. 14 Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, (9th Cir. 2003) WL (N.Y. Sup. May 24, 1995). 16 Id. at *4. A bulletin board system is a computer system that provides its users files for downloading and areas for electronic discussions. Glossary of Internet Terms, E-BIZ-U.COM, at 17 Stratton Oakmont, 1995 WL , at *1. 18 Id. at *4.
3 removing the material would subject the service provider to publisher liability. 19 In response, Congress enacted 47 U.S.C as part of the CDA Under 230, a provider of an interactive computer service cannot be held liable for publishing or distributing a defamatory statement made by another party 22 as long as the service provider did not assist in the creation or development of the statement. 23 Specifically, 230 states that 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. The statute defines an interactive computer service as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. 24 Interactive computer services include online bookstores, 25 online auctions, 26 and online bulletin boards. 27 In addition, an information content provider is any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service Congress also enacted 230 to promote the development of the Internet and to preserve its unique nature. 29 The Internet is unique from other communication services because it enables individuals from around the world to place, or post, information onto interactive computer services and to quickly receive responses to that information from previously unknown persons. Information posting services include, but are not limited to, listservs 30 and online bulletin boards. Traditional media are unable to facilitate this same degree of collaboration and development of ideas. 7 In Batzel v. Smith, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a provider of a website or listserv can be immune from publisher liability. 31 In Batzel, a Mr. Cremers operated a website and listserv 19 Batzel, 333 F.3d at Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material, 47 U.S.C. 230 (2003). 21 H.R. Conf. Rep. No , at 194 (1996) ( One of the specific purposes of this section is to overrule Stratton- Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions which have treated such providers and users as publishers or speakers of content that is not their own because they have restricted access to objectionable material. ); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at only explicitly provides immunity for publisher liability. However, all courts to rule on the subject have concluded that 230 inherently includes immunity for distributor liability. Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1027 n.10 (citing Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, (4th Cir. 1997)); Ben Ezra, Weistein, and Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 986 (10th Cir. 2000); Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010, (Fla. 2001)). 23 Batzel, 333 F.3d at (f)(2). 25 Schneider v. Amazon.com, 31 P.3d 37, 41 (Wash. App. Div. 2001). 26 Gentry v. ebay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 831 n.7 (2002). 27 Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330 n (f)(3). 29 See 230 (b). 30 A listserv is a family of programs that manages mailing lists by distributing messages posted to the list, adding and deleting members automatically. Glossary of Internet Terms, supra note F.3d at 1034.
4 that distributed information about museum security and stolen art. 32 One day Cremers received an from a Mr. Smith stating that Smith suspected that paintings located in the house of a Ms. Batzel were stolen. 33 The requested guidance on how to report the stolen art. 34 Cremers selected Smith s , made minor edits, placed the in an electronic newsletter, and distributed the newsletter via the listserv. 35 Soon thereafter, Batzel sued Cremers and Smith claiming that Smith s statements were false and harmful to her reputation The court of appeal s analysis of Cremer s actions turned on whether Cremer s act of selecting and editing the made him a co-developer of the statements. 37 The statements could not be considered to be information provided by another information content provider if Cremers was a co-developer. 38 The court reasoned that Cremers was not a co-developer because editing and selecting content is part of the normal duties of a publisher, and, if the CDA frees publishers from liability, then Cremers actions as a publisher could not also make him ineligible for immunity. 39 In addition, the court stated that Cremers is only immune from liability if Smith intended Cremers to publish the Lastly, the court acknowledged that the CDA does not require a provider of an interactive computer service to remove a statement from its service even after the injured party informs the service provider that the statement is defamatory Judge Gould dissented from the majority s opinion and argued that Congress did not intend the statute to protect rumors and falsehoods. 42 Gould postulated that the CDA should be interpreted to endow a provider on an interactive computer service with immunity from liability only if the service provider does not take an active role in selecting the statement for publication. 43 However, Gould continued, if the service provider takes an active role in selecting the statement, the statement is no longer information provided by another party, and the service provider is liable. 44 The majority implied that Gould s rule had merit, but stated that the 32 Id. at Id. 34 See id. 35 Id. at Id. 37 Id. at Id. 39 Id. at Id. at See id. at 1031 n Id. at 1040 (Gould, J., dissenting). 43 Id. at (Gould, J., dissenting). 44 Id. at (Gould, J., dissenting).
5 dissent did not have any statutory backing for its opinion. 45 The majority s holding in Batzel is consistent with the opinions of other courts. 46 BRINGING THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT IN LINE WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY 10 The common law tort of defamation and the CDA are inherently based on policy decisions. The tort of defamation signifies that avenging and reducing the harm caused to individuals by defamatory statements is worth some limitations on free speech. 47 The CDA implies that avenging and reducing the harm from electronic defamatory statements is not worth the risk of limiting the unique nature of the Internet and the risk of deterring providers of interactive computer services from voluntarily regulating objectionable material. 48 However, the CDA policy decision is based on the state of the Internet in Today, the Internet is used by 140 million American adults 49 and is a valuable research and educational tool. In fact, a defamatory statement made on the Internet will likely cause the same, if not more, harm as a similar statement made in a traditional information service because of the number of people who could potentially read the statement. 50 Therefore, in 2003, the 1996 balance between the harm caused by electronic defamatory statements and the goals of the CDA is at best suspect. 11 The CDA would be a sound policy if it protected individuals from electronic defamatory statements, protected the unique nature of the Internet, and protected a service provider s ability to voluntarily edit objectionable material. It is imperative that an amended statute does not protect individuals at the expense of the original objectives of the CDA because such a statute would create the very situation feared by the 1996 lawmakers. All three policy objectives would be accomplished if the CDA included a broad definition of development and a take-down and put-back provision. 45 See id. at Compare with Blumenthal v. Drudge, where the court made a policy argument similar to the dissent s argument in Batzel. However, the court did apply the argument because the argument did not comply with the language of the CDA. 992 F. Supp. 44, (D.D.C. 1998). 46 Ben Ezra, Weistein, and Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 986 (10th Cir. 2000) ( By deleting the symbols, however, Defendant simply made the data unavailable and did not develop or create the stock quotation information displayed.); Blumenthal, 992 F. Supp. at 52 ( But Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others. ); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, (4th Cir. 1997) ( Once a computer service provider receives notice of a potentially defamatory posting, it is thrust into the role of a traditional publisher. The computer service provider must decide whether to publish, edit or withdraw the posting. In this respect, [the defendant] is assuming the role for which 230 specifically proscribes liability the publisher s role. ). 47 See generally RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS See generally 47 U.S.C. 230 (b), (c)(1). 49 Harris Interactive, supra note 5, at tbl See Susan Freiwald, Comparative Institutional Analysis in Cyberspace: The Case of Intermediary Liability for Defamation, 14 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 569, (2001) ( This means that for victims of those statements that are found to be defamatory, or would be adjudicated, the injury can be extremely large in terms of how many people viewed the defamation and likely responded to it by reducing their opinion of the victim. ).
6 1. Publisher Liability and a Definition of Development 12 Under the current CDA, a provider of an interactive computer service is immune from liability for publishing a defamatory statement made by another party if the service provider was not a co-developer of the statement. The CDA does not define what actions constitute development, but the courts have held that actively selecting a statement for publication is not enough to qualify the service provider as a co-developer of the statement. 51 This discrepancy between e-providers and traditional providers would not exist if the CDA included a broad definition of development, such as: A provider of an interactive computer service is considered to have participated in the development of information provided by another information content provider if the service provider actively selected the information for publication. The interactive service provider is not considered to have actively selected the information if the service provider only took actions consistent with 230 (c)(2)(a). 52 Under this definition, a provider of an interactive computer service is subject to publisher liability if it posts information that it specifically selected for publication, but is not subject to liability if it posts all the non objectionable material it receives. For example, a provider of a listserv that reviews all s sent to the listserv and posts all the non objectionable messages, or all the messages minus the objectionable text, is immune from publisher liability. However, the same service provider is not immune from liability if it only posts the messages it believes to be relevant. 13 Inserting this definition of development into the CDA preserves the original objectives of the statute and is a first step to protecting individuals from electronic defamatory statements. First, the definition preserves a service provider s ability to voluntarily remove objectionable material from its service. The service provider is not considered to be a co-developer of information provided by another information content provider if the service provider s only selection criteria is that the information does not contain objectionable material. 14 Second, the definition does not stifle the unique nature of the Internet because it does not create an incentive for the service provider to discontinue its information posting service. The service provider only incurs liability if it limits the non objectionable material available on its service, or, in other words, the service provider only incurs liability if it turns its posting service into an online newsletter or quasi-newspaper. There 51 See Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003). 52 Section 230 (c)(2) states: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
7 is nothing inherently unique about a high-speed newspaper that would justify the high-speed newspaper being protected from publisher liability when a traditional newspaper would not be protected Third, the definition of development subjects the service provider to the common law tort of defamation if the service provider selects and publishes a defamatory statement made by another party. However, the definition does not require the service provider to retract the statement once the service provider knows the statement is false. Therefore, inserting the definition of development into the CDA is only the first step in bringing the statute completely in line with sound public policy. 16 There are two arguments against inserting the definition of development into the CDA. The first argument is that the CDA should not be altered because the Internet allows an individual harmed by an electronic defamatory statement to rebut the statement in the same forum. This argument is misguided for three reasons. First, the current CDA does not require a provider of an interactive computer service to post a rebuttal or retraction to a defamatory statement. Second, not all interactive computer services allow the injured individual to rebut the defamatory statement in the same forum. For example, in Batzel, Batzel could not directly place a rebuttal in Cremer s electronic newsletter because the content of the newsletter was controlled solely by Cremers. 54 Third, assuming the injured individual is able to post a rebuttal, the current CDA does not provide the injured party with any means of obtaining monetary damages. 17 The second argument against inserting the definition is that the Internet provides an inexpensive opportunity for a lay person to electronically publish information and that any amendment to the CDA might stifle this ability. This argument is also misguided because the definition of development does not change the cost of online publishing, such as, the price of web space or the price of creating a web page. The definition only requires any provider of an interactive computer services to meet minimal common law standards. 2. Distributor Liability and a Take-Down and Put-Back Provision 18 By itself, the definition of development does not adequately protect individuals from electronic defamatory statements because the definition does not hold a provider of an interactive computer service liable for refusing to remove a statement from its service that it knows to be defamatory. 55 In 2000, Congress faced a similar problem with copyrights and solved it by enacting a take-down and put-back provision 56 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA ). 57 The DCMA take-down and put-back provision subjects an online service provider to distributor liability for failing to remove defamatory material posted by another party from its service if the service provider knows, or has been sufficiently notified, that the material 53 See generally Batzel, 333 F.3d at See id. at See id. at 1031 n Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online, 17 U.S.C. 512 (2003). 57 Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031 n.19.
8 infringes a third party s copyright. 58 In addition, the provision places the burden of investigating the validity of a copyright infringement claim on the injured party and the party that posted the material If the DCMA take-down and put-back provision was adapted to the CDA, a provider of an interactive computer service would be subjected to distributor liability if it had actual knowledge that a statement is defamatory, had knowledge of facts which make the defamatory nature of a statement apparent, received financial benefit directly from a defamatory statement, or was notified that a statement is defamatory, and did not remove the statement from its service. 60 The service provider is considered to know that a statement is defamatory if a reasonable person in the service provider s position would conclude that it is apparent that the statement is defamatory. 61 In addition, the service provider is only considered to be notified of the existence of a defamatory statement if the injured party submits a formal written notification 62 to the service provider. 63 The service provider may file a lawsuit to recoup any expenses incurred as the result of a fraudulent statement made within the notification Upon receiving a valid notification, the service provider retains its immunity if it adheres to a set of formal procedures. The service provider must first inform the party that provided the statement that the statement will be removed from the service. 65 The service provider is only required to take reasonable steps to contact the content provider, such as, sending an to the address that was connected to the original posting. 66 The content provider may submit a counter notice declaring that the statement is not defamatory. 67 If he or she submits a counter notice, the service provider must put the disputed statement back onto the interactive computer service within ten to fourteen business days. 68 The injured party may then seek an 58 H.R. Rep. No (II), at (1998). 59 See id. at Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031 n.19; 512 (c)(1); H.R. Rep. No (II), at See H.R. Rep. No (II), at 53; see generally RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS 12, The notification is only valid if it substantially includes: (1) A physical or electronic signature of the injured party. (2) Identification of the statement claimed to be defamatory, or, if multiple defamatory statements at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such statements at that site. (3) Identification of the statement that is claimed to be defamatory or to be the subject of defamatory activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the statements. (4) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the injured party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the injured party may be contacted. (5) A statement that the injured party has a good faith belief that the statements are defamatory. (6) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate. See 512 (c)(3) (c)(3)(a), (B)(i); H.R. Rep. No (II), at (f); H.R. Rep. No (II), at (g)(2); H.R. Rep. No (II), at (g)(2)(A); H.R. Rep. No (II), at (g)(2)(B); H.R Rep. No (II), at (g)(2)(C); H.R. Rep. No (II), at 60.
9 injunction declaring that the statement is defamatory and that it must be removed. 69 The service provider is not involved in the court proceedings, but must comply with the order The proposed CDA take-down and put-back provision preserves the original objectives of the CDA and is the second step to protecting individuals from electronic defamatory statements. First, the take-down and put-back provision imposes liability only if a provider of an interactive computer service purposefully leaves a defamatory statement on its service, without first following the prescribed protocol. The service provider s ability to voluntarily remove objectionable material from its service is not affected. 22 Second, the provision does not stifle the unique nature of the Internet because the provision does not make it more economically efficient for a service provider to alter its service. A generic distributor liability provision could stifle the unique nature of the Internet. 71 If the service provider is forced to incur significant expenses in order to adequately investigate whether a statement is defamatory, the service provider may find it more efficient to automatically discard every disputed statement, 72 or to stop providing the service all together. 73 However, the take-down and put back provision places the majority of the investigation costs on the injured party and the content provider. The service provider does not incur investigation costs if it knows that the statement is defamatory because there is nothing to investigate. In addition, if the service provider is notified that a statement might be defamatory, the service provider s only responsibility is to take-down and put-back the statement according to the formal procedure. Also, the service provider can recover any costs associated with a fraudulent notification. Lastly, in the case of an injunction, the service provider s only responsibility is to remove the statement if so ordered. The service provider will likely find it economically advantageous to internalize these minimal transaction costs because it will be driven by market forces to provide a competitive information posting service. 23 Third, the take-down and put back-provision protects individuals from electronic defamatory statements. The provision imposes liability on a service provider if it refuses to remove a statement from its service that it knows to be defamatory or that it has been notified could be defamatory. CONCLUSION 24 The CDA should be amended to include a broad definition of development and a take-down and put-back provision. Under the current CDA, a provider of an interactive computer service may select and publish a defamatory statement made by another party and may refuse to remove the statement from its 69 See generally 512 (g); H.R. Rep. No (II), at See generally 512 (g); H.R. Rep. No (II), at Paul Ehrlich, Cyberlaw: Regulating Conduct on the Internet, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 401, 415 (2002). 72 Id. at ; see also Freiwald, supra note 50, at 590 ( Common law courts have been hesitant to impose upon these entities a liability rule that would force them to review publications as a matter of course, reflecting concern that distributors would unduly limit their publications out of fear of liability and to avoid the burden of reviewing them. ).
10 service even if the service provider knows that the statement is false. Conversely, a provider of a traditional information service is liable if it publishes or distributes defamatory material. This distinction between e- providers and traditional providers is suspect because a defamatory statement published over the Internet has as much, if not more, potential for harm as a statement published over a traditional media. 25 The CDA would be in line with sound public policy if it included the proposed definition of development and the take-down and put-back provision. The definition of development would subject a provider of an interactive computer service to publisher liability if the service provider actively selected the information posted on its service. The take-down and put-back provision would subject the service provider to distributor liability if it refused to remove a statement from its service which it knew to be defamatory or for which an injured party had submitted a formal notification. In addition, the amended CDA would preserve the unique nature of the Internet and would not deter service providers from voluntarily regulating objectionable material. 73 Ehrlich, supra note 71, at
Liability of Internet Service Providers Tsuneaki Hagiwara Manager of the Legal Department, Toppan Printing Co., Ltd. 1. U.S. Rules Limiting Liability of Internet Service Providers (1) Copyright Infringement
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MARK ANDREW AUSTIN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CRYSTALTECH WEB HOSTING, an Arizona corporation; JOHN M. DANIELS aka JACK DANIELS, d/b/a, PT BALI DISCOVERY
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LIABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTORY TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AFTER GUCCI In Gucci America v. Hall Associates (2001), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that
Filed 2/5/04 Grace v. ebay CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
31 P.3d 37 (2001) Jerome SCHNEIDER, an individual, Appellant, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Washington corporation; and John Does and Jane Does I-X, and the marital communities comprised thereof, Respondents.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 14, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNET BRANDS, INC., DBA Modelmayhem.com, Defendant-Appellee. No. 12-56638 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03626-
\\server05\productn\s\smc\10-1\smc103.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-MAR-06 17:08 Liability of ISPs: Immunity from Liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Communications Decency Act by Cyrus
Jozii LLC WEBSITE TERMS OF SERVICE 1. Acceptance of Terms. Welcome to Jozii. By using our Internet website, you indicate your unconditional acceptance of the following Terms of Service. Please read them
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 firstname.lastname@example.org 'Safe Harbor' For Online Service Providers
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CECILIA L. BARNES, Civil No. 05-926-AA OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, vs. YAHOO!, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Thomas R. Rask Kell,
Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Symposium: Information and Electronic Commerce Law: Comparative Perspectives Article 6 Fall 2001 Making Waves in Statutory Safe Harbors: Reevaluating
Defamation In The Digital Age: Liability In Chat Rooms, On Electronic Bulletin Boards, And In The Blogosphere Danielle M. Conway-Jones A. Origins And Principles Of Defamation Law 1. Defamation is relatively
Ninth Circuit Interprets DMCA Safe Harbor in Favor of Service Providers Like Veoh By Yuo-Fong C. Amato, Associate The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment and a Rule 12(b)(6)
Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AF HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, No. C -0 PJH v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING JOHN DOE
Liability of Internet Service Providers Hisamichi Okamura 1. Preface With respect to the liability of ISPs, in the United States a uniform legislative solution has already been devised, with the Digital
School District and Campus Web Sites: More than Meets the Eye A surprising number of legal and policy issues are raised in the creation and maintenance of school district Web sites. Whether your school
Social Media Guidelines for School Board Members Many school board members are active users of social media, including online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as other media such as blogs
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELLEN L. BATZEL, a citizen of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT SMITH, a citizen of the State of North Carolina;
Filed 11/20/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN J. BARRETT et al., ) ) Plaintiffs and Appellants, ) ) S122953 v. ) ) Ct.App. 1/2 A096451 ILENA ROSENTHAL, ) ) Alameda County Defendant and Respondent.
Case 3:06-cv-01710-JCH Document 87 Filed 04/19/007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DOCTOR S ASSOCIATES, INC., : Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION NO. v. : 3:06-cv-1710
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 9 Issue 3 Fall Article 9 Fall 2010 Ensuring Innovation as the Internet Matures: Competing Interpretations of the Intellectual Property
Case :0-cv-0-JF Document Filed //00 Page of **E-Filed //0** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JENNA GODDARD, individually and on behalf of all
Blogging for Lawyers by Francis G.X. Pileggi 1 Pennsylvania Bar Institute Business Lawyers Institute Wanamaker Building Philadelphia, PA Thursday, November 13, 2008 1 Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esquire is the
ABA Section of Litigation Corporate Counsel CLE Seminar, February 11-14, 2010: Protecting Your Company s Reputation on the Internet Protecting Your Company s Reputation on the Internet Christopher J. Akin
SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED JUNE, 00 Sponsored by: Senator JEFF VAN DREW District (Cape May, Atlantic and Cumberland) SYNOPSIS "New Jersey Fair Debt Collection Practices Act."
Case 2:13-cv-00926-CW-BCW Document 53 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION VISION SECURITY, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, ROB HARRIS,
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 25 January 2004 Batzel v. Smith & Barrett v. Rosenthal Defamation Liability for Third-Party Content on the Internet Jae Hong Lee Follow this and
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ASSOCIATED BANK-CORP., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v. 05-C-0233-S EARTHLINK, INC., Defendant. Plaintiff Associated Bank-Corp.
Acceptable Use (Anti-Abuse) Policy This document describes the Acceptable Use Policy for the Rightside registry. Copyright 2014 Rightside Registry Copyright 2014 Rightside Domains Europe Ltd. Rightside
Case 2:06-cv-02631-SMM Document 17 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES BRETT MARCHANT, Plaintiff, 2:06-cv-02631 PHX JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at
Intellectual Property Technology Law Journal & Edited by the Technology and Proprietary Rights Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP VOLUME 19 NUMBER 7 JULY 2007 Social Networking Sites: To Monitor or Not
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, email@example.com
DEFAMED BY A BLOGGER: LEGAL PROTECTIONS, SELF- REGULATION AND OTHER FAILURES Jennifer Meredith Liebman I. INTRODUCTION: WELCOME TO THE BLOGOSPHERE, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO TODAY? A decade ago, Congress
emobile Bulk Text Services Terms and Conditions of Use These terms and conditions apply to the supply of the emobile Bulk Text service (the "Service") and are in addition to and form part of the emobile
But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell
Introduction The RAJI (CIVIL) 5th Product Liability Instructions refer only to manufacturers and sellers. These instructions should be expanded when appropriate to include others in the business of placing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 BENNETT HASELTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. C0-RSL FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC94355 WELLS, C.J. JANE DOE, mother and legal guardian of JOHN DOE, a minor, Petitioner, vs. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., Respondent. [March 8, 2001] We have for review Doe v. America
1. Introduction 1.1 These terms and conditions shall govern your use of our website. 1.2 By using our website, you accept these terms and conditions in full; accordingly, if you disagree with these terms
Legal Research Record Summary of problem(s) Design and Dress Limited (DDL) has experienced problems due to the alleged harassment of one of their employees, Susie Baker, by another employee, Stephen Harding
Cablelynx provides a variety of Internet Services (the Services) to both residential and business customers (the Customer). Below, you will find the terms and conditions that you agree to by subscribing
Employer Terms Welcome to Toozly. These Employer Terms apply to You if You place any Job Ads on Toozly. By accepting these Employer Terms, You also accept the Site Terms. We may vary the Site terms and
TH CONGRESS ST SESSION S. ll To prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES llllllllll Mr. LEAHY (for himself,
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit
Acceptance of Terms Last Updated: January 24, 2014 Terms of Service Please read this Terms of Service Agreement carefully. MedicaidInsuranceBenefits.com ("MedicaidInsuranceBenefits.com," "our," "us") provides
VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY WINTER 2004 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VOL. 9, NO. 2 Application of the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions to Search Engines CRAIG W. WALKER ABSTRACT The Digital Millennium Copyright
Protection from Harassment Bill Bill No. 12/2014. Read the first time on 3rd March 2014. PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 2014 (No. of 2014) Section ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)(15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.), which became effective March 20, 1978, was designed to eliminate abusive, deceptive, and unfair
Terms and conditions of use 1. Introduction 1.1 These terms and conditions govern your use of our website. 1.2 By using our website, you accept these terms and conditions in full; accordingly, if you disagree
BUCKEYE EXPRESS HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY The Acceptable Use Policy ("the Policy") governs use of the Buckeye Express High Speed Internet Service ("the Service"). All subscribers
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION Internet Defamation Corporate Risks and Remedies By Frederick E. Blakelock and Kevin W. Weber One s good name can too easily be harmed through publication of false and defaming statements
Alliance for Fertility Preservation Website and Fertility Preservation Services Locator and Referral System Terms and Conditions of Use PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE (the "TERMS") CAREFULLY
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
cosmeticsurgerycounselling.com is owned and operated by Cosmeticsupport.com, operating as a private agency. This information archive and support site is therefore governed under the laws of UK, the EU.!
Credit Reports and the Consumer Law Eric E. Johnson eejlaw.com Konomark Most rights sharable. The Credit Bureaus 1 State law causes of action against credit bureaus Defamation Invasion of privacy State
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE CAREFULLY. THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE YOUR LAST VISIT TO THIS WEB SITE. BY USING THIS WEB SITE, YOU
Tomas A. Lipinski, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D. Emerging Legal Issues in the Collection and Dissemination of Internet- Sourced 1 INTRODUCTION This article is the second installment in a series of four articles examining
Forrestville Valley School District #221 Student Acknowledgment of Receipt of Administrative Procedures for Acceptable Use of the Electronic Network 2015-2016 All use of electronic networks shall be consistent
Defenses in a Product Liability Claim written by: Mark Schultz, Esq. COZEN O CONNOR Suite 400, 200 Four Falls Corporate Center West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (800) 379-0695 (610) 941-5400 firstname.lastname@example.org
MARKETING AND ADVERTISING THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA Ann H. Chen, Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company Gonzalo E. Mon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Sylvie G. Motz, Practical Law Company, Inc. Overview Endorsements Promotions
Terms Of Service BY USING THE COMPANY'S SERVICES YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 1. Definitions. "The Company" means CIT Broadband, P.O. Box 122568, Fort Worth, TX 76121. "The Subscriber"
Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza
Case 106-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GUSTAVO VILLANUEVO-SOTELO, Defendant. CRIMINAL
REPUTATION MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERNET AGE ANDREW P. BOLSON, ESQ. Rubenstein, Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, Conte & Bern, P.A. Introduction Andrew P. Bolson Attorney with Rubenstein, Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli,
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Tim Cameron, Kim Chamberlain, Chris Killian Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association David R. Carpenter, Collin P. Wedel, Lauren A. McCray Liability of Municipal Members
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
ONLINE DEFAMATION & REPUTATION MANAGEMENT Presented by Russell Davis www.sandiegobusinesslaw.com Actual email-received March 28, 2011 Dear, It appears that your business is under attack from a malicious
TTCU THE CREDIT UNION ONLINE BANKING AGREEMENT & DISCLOSURES 1. Introduction. This Agreement is the contract which covers your and our rights and responsibilities concerning Online Banking ("Online Banking")
1. Acceptance of Terms Welcome to s Social Trading (the Social Trading Features ). Social Trading Features provide an integrated solution of equity trading and exploration of interactions among investors
Online Bank mobile Disclosure Introduction Energy One Federal Credit Union strives to provide you with the highest quality mobile banking available. By enrolling in the Service, you agree to all the terms
DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE & COPYRIGHT CLAIMS POLICY INMOTION HOSTING, INC. ("INMOTION") supports the protection of intellectual property. Therefore, we have established the following policies regarding copyright