Volume IV

Issue : 20: November 30, 2006

• U.S. Court of Appeals Denies Claim under CAN SPAM Act
• California Supreme Court Rules Online Republishers not Liable for Third Party Postings
• Movie Studios Bring Action over Movies on iPods
• Craigslist Receives Favourable Ruling on Housing Listings
• Nova Scotias New Privacy Legislation to Counter U.S. Patriot Act
• Zillow.com Accused of Racial Discrimination When Valuing Homes
• Microsoft Catches Phishers
• The Big Three Search Engines Collaborate with Sitemaps Project
• The McDonalds Sandwich Patent
• Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes the Right to Enforce a Foreign Non Monetary Judgment

Home > Volume IV > Issue 20: November 30, 2006 > California Supreme Court Rules Online Republishers not Liable for Third Party Postings

California Supreme Court Rules Online Republishers not Liable for Third Party Postings

The Supreme Court of California has overturned an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had ruled that ISPs and users of online services were exposed to liability if they republish a statement with notice of its defamatory character and that the “publishers” immunity found in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the “CDA”) was inapplicable to such republishing. The Supreme Court has conversely ruled that the publisher’s immunity in the CDA should be given expansive and literal interpretation, and that it provides broad immunity from defamation lawsuits for people who publish information on the Internet that was gathered from another source, irrespective of whether they are a service provider or a user, or whether they are an active or passive user.

Section 230 of the CDA provides 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 Court rejected the argument that immunity under this provision extended only to traditional publishers, but that the online equivalent of “distributors” should be treated differently and not be subject to immunity under Section 230. Given that distributors are also known as “secondary publishers”, the Court observed, “there is little reason to believe Congress felt it necessary to address them separately”, and “publisher” should be given an inclusive interpretation. The intent of Section 230, the Court held, is to broadly shield all providers from liability for publishing information received from third parties, “even the most active Internet publishers, those who take an aggressive role in republishing third party content”, and even where the publisher actively selects the content.

The Court concluded by observing that recognition of broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has “troubling” consequences; however, until Congress chooses to revise this settled law, “plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement”.

For a copy of the decision, visit:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122953.PDF.