Section 230 Communications Decency Act Does Not Provide An Absolute Immunity.

July 2nd, 2009

Internet service providers often cite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as an absolute shield to liability for content on a website operated by them.  However, Section 230 carries with it numerous exceptions.

Eric Goldman at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog has identified three examples where websites will always remain liable for first party content. Continue reading Section 230 Communications Decency Act Does Not Provide An Absolute Immunity. »

Communication Decency Act Section 230 Immunity: Defining an Internet Service Provider as a Publisher or Speaker

June 9th, 2009

People often refer to the Communication Decency Act’s (CDA) ability to provide immunity to internet service providers who publish third party material.  Interestingly enough, the statute itself does not use the word immunity but rather provides an exclusion from liability.  That exclusion considers whether the internet service provider is publisher or a speaker.  In fact, courts are beginning to adhere to the publisher or speaker definition in assessing the applicability of the exception. Continue reading Communication Decency Act Section 230 Immunity: Defining an Internet Service Provider as a Publisher or Speaker »

Section 230 Communications Decency Act Immunity: How to Use It and How to Lose It

June 8th, 2009

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to an internet service provider that merely publishes user-generated content, as long as its actions do not rise to the level of a content provider. Simply put, the closer the internet service provider is to a service provider than to a content provider, the more likely that the Section 230 immunity will apply. CDA immunity is often sought by internet service providers when parties file defamation and related torts against the website operator. Continue reading Section 230 Communications Decency Act Immunity: How to Use It and How to Lose It »

Web Agreements Must Address User-Generated Content in Order to Receive Section 230 Immunity

June 8th, 2009

So many websites today are driven by user-generated content. While all websites should contain website agreements, such as terms of use, privacy policy, and a copyright policy, those websites that allow for user-generated content should absolutely ensure that they have such agreements.  For sites with UGC, web site owners need to ensure that they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if possible. In particular, the following should be considered: Continue reading Web Agreements Must Address User-Generated Content in Order to Receive Section 230 Immunity »

How To Know When Section 230 Communications Decency Act Immunity Applies

May 29th, 2009

When dealing with user-generated content, the issue often arises whether immunity under the Communications Decency Act, Section 230 , applies so as to shield the computer service provider from liability for information originating with a third party user of the service.  Courts generally address three separate inquiries when determining an answer.  The court will look to the following: Continue reading How To Know When Section 230 Communications Decency Act Immunity Applies »

User Generated Content: Section 230 Immunity Exception Requires That You Not Be An Information Content Provider

May 29th, 2009

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, commonly referred to as Section 230 by those in internet law space, provides immunity from civil liability for both providers of and users of “an interactive computer service” that publish information provided by others.  This essentially shields web hosts from liability for user-generated content that may be deemed unlawful.  As we learned in the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com case as well as subsequent decisions , in order to avail oneself of the immunity offered under Section 230, the defendant must not be an “information content provider”. Continue reading User Generated Content: Section 230 Immunity Exception Requires That You Not Be An Information Content Provider »

Section 230 Communications Decency Act of 1996

March 25th, 2009

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230 , immunizes providers of interactive computer services from liability from user generated content.  An "interactive computer service" is defined as "any information service, system, or access software provider that providers or enables computer access by multiples users to a computer server."  The CDA specifically states that "No provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."  Thus, as long the computer service provider is not also an information content provider, or someone "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of" the offending conduct, the immunity of the CDA applies. Continue reading Section 230 Communications Decency Act of 1996 »

© 2011 Traverse Legal, PLC. All Rights Reserved.
Traverse Legal on LinkedInTraverse Legal on FacebookTraverse Legal on Twitter
Events & Conferences:
  • International Trademark Association 2011, San Francisco, California
  • Cyber Law Summit 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Game Developers Conference 2011, San Francisco, California
  • DOMAINfest 2011, Santa Monica, California
Recent Attorney Speaking Engagements:
  • South By Southwest 2010 SXSW Interactive Conference, Austin, Texas
  • West LegalEdcenter Midwestern Law Firm Management, Chicago, Illinois
  • Internet Advertising under Part 255, Altitude Design Summit, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Online Defamation and Reputation Management, News Talk 650 AM, The Cory Kolt Show, Canada Public Radio Saskatewan Canada
  • Alternative Fee Structures, Center for Competitive Management, Jersey City, New Jersey
  • FTC Part 255 Advertising Requirements, Mom 2.0 Conference, Houston, Texas
  • Webmaster Radio, Cybersquatting & Domain Monetization, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Notable Complex Litigation Cases Handled By Our Lawyers:
  • Trademark Infringement, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Cybersquatting Law, Trademark Law and Dilution Detroit, Michigan
  • Internet Defamation & Online Libel Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Trade Secret Theft, Chicago, Illinois
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Miami, Florida
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Eastern Dist. of Virginia, Alexandria
  • Stolen Domain Name, Orlando, Florida
  • Commercial Litigation, Tampa, Florida
  • Copyright Infringement and Cybersquatting Law, Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Mass Tort Litigation, Los Angeles, California
  • Stolen Domain Name, Detroit, Michigan
  • Adwords Keyword Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles, California
  • Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Non-Compete Agreement and Trade Secret Theft, Detroit, Michigan
  • Mass Tort, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Mass Tort, Tyler, Texas
  • Insurance Indemnity, New York
  • Copyright Infringement, Detroit, Michigan