E-Commerce Law Week, Issue 591

Learning To Love That Roommate from Hell

Back when it was decided, the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC struck fear in the hearts of website operators who depend on user-generated content because it seemed to open a gaping hole in the immunity shield provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)) (CDA).  As we've previously reported, the Ninth Circuit held that Roommates.com forfeited its CDA immunity when it "encourag[ed] illegal content" by offering users limited content options via drop-down menus as a precondition for using the service.  But since then, most courts have interpreted Roommates.com narrowly, thus assuaging some of the concern that the section 230 aegis would be reduced to tatters.  The Fourth Circuit recently continued that trend in Nemet Chevrolet Ltd., et al., v Consumeraffairs.com, Incorporated, rejecting claims that a website acted as an "information content provider" -- and thereby lost its immunity -- by soliciting, revising, and categorizing consumer complaints in order to "attract attention by consumer class action lawyers."

Court Refuses to Enforce Take-Down Injunction Against Website

A federal district court in Illinois has ruled in David Blockowicz, et al., v. Joseph David Williams, et al., that a website is not required to remove defamatory remarks despite an injunction against the persons who posted the remarks on the site.  Wishing to avoid the immunity provision of the CDA, the plaintiffs sued the actual authors of the defamatory remarks rather than the websites that posted the remarks.  The court issued an injunction requiring the plaintiffs to remove the remarks, but the plaintiffs were unable to contact the defendants.  The plaintiffs therefore moved for third-party enforcement of the injunction against the website, ripoff.com.  But the court was unpersuaded that the website – despite Terms of Service that included a copyright claim to all posted comments, a statement that comments would never be removed, and an indemnification clause – should be considered an aider and abettor of the defamatory remarks, and therefore refused to enforce the injunction against it. 

Release of In the Crossfire:  Critical Infrastructure in the Age of Cyber War, Thursday, January 28, 2010

Please join Steptoe & Johnson LLP partner Stewart Baker for the release of a report he co-authored as Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, entitled In the Crossfire:  Critical Infrastructure in the Age of Cyber War.  The report, commissioned by McAfee, Inc., and conducted by CSIS, results from interviews and polling of 600 IT professionals around the world and compares cybersecurity in half a dozen sectors and 14 countries.  The event will take place at the CSIS offices at 1800 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and will begin with a light, complimentary breakfast at 9:30 a.m.  There is no charge to attend, but reservations are required.

Questions and comments about E-Commerce Law Week are always welcome.  Please send your feedback to Sally Albertazzie.