Dart v. Craigslist, Inc.

Last updated

Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County v. Craigslist, Inc.
DecidedOctober 20, 2009
Citation665 F. Supp. 2d 961
Holding
The Court granted Craigslist's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that it was immune from liability pursuant to Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act.
Court membership
Judge sitting John F. Grady
Keywords
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009), is a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in which the court held that Craigslist, as an Internet service provider, was immune from wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Sheriff Thomas Dart had sought to hold Craigslist responsible for allegedly illegal content posted by users in Craigslist's erotic services section, but Section 230(c)(1) 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." [1]

Contents

Factual and procedural background

Plaintiff Thomas Dart is Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago. He was named to Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential" list in 2009 for his innovative approach to law enforcement. [2]

From January 2007 through November 2008, Sheriff Dart's department expended 3,120 man hours and approximately $105,081 investigating postings which appeared to be offers for prostitution on the "erotic services" section of the Craigslist website. [3] The police arrested 156 people in association with their activity on the erotic services section of Craigslist during this period. [3]

Craigslist required those posting ads to agree to its "Terms of Use," which prohibited posting unlawful content. [3] Before accessing the erotic services section, users also received a "warning & disclaimer," which stated that users agree to flag content that violates the Terms of Use including "offers for or the solicitation of prostitution." [3]

Despite Craigslist's efforts to prevent the posting of unlawful content, Sheriff Dart alleged that users frequently posted unlawful content in the erotic services category. [3] In fact, the website had become a valuable source of information for law enforcement uncovering prostitution rings. [4] Sheriff Dart stated that he had sent letters to Craigslist requesting that it either take down the erotic services section or provide greater policing of it, but Craigslist did not respond. [5] He further stated, "I could make arrests off Craigslist 24 hours a day, but to what end? I'm trying to go up the ladder." [5]

Sheriff Dart filed suit against Craigslist on March 5, 2009, alleging that its erotic services section was a public nuisance because it facilitated prostitution. [6] The complaint charged that Craigslist was "the single largest source of prostitution in the nation." [6] He sought compensation for his police department's expenditures on Craigslist-related prostitution and punitive damages. [6] He also requested an injunction requiring Craigslist to desist the complained-of conduct. [6]

Craigslist moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that it was immune from liability pursuant to Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act. [7]

Court ruling

Craigslist asserted its immunity from Sheriff Dart's claims on the grounds of Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others. [8]

Section 230(c): Protection for "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material [1]

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker—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.

Applying § 230(c)(1) to Sheriff Dart's Public-Nuisance Claim

Sheriff Dart alleged that Craigslist actually committed unlawful acts by knowingly arranging prostitutions and directing users to places of prostitution. [3] The court, however, refused to accept this argument because Craigslist did not create these ads, citing Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist , 519 F.3d at 671 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that Craigslist had not authored the discriminatory ads and "could not be treated as the 'speaker' of the posters' words, given § 230(c)(1)."). [3] The court further noted that "intermediaries are not culpable for 'aiding and abetting' their customers who misuse their services to commit unlawful acts." [3]

The court also refused to accept the argument that Craigslist caused or induced its users to post unlawful ads merely by supplying the erotic category and an associated search mechanism, stating that "the phrase 'adult,' even in conjunction with 'services,' is not unlawful in itself nor does it necessarily call for unlawful content." [3] The court's analysis was not swayed by the apparent ineffectiveness of Craigslist's guidelines. [3] The court concluded that "Section 230(c)(1) would serve little if any purpose if companies like Craigslist were found liable under state law for 'causing' or 'inducing' users to post unlawful content in this fashion." [3]

Changes to the Craigslist's erotic services category

After Dart filed suit, Craigslist voluntarily altered its erotic service category. Craigslist renamed the category from "erotic" to "adult", applied a "manual review process" on all submissions to the adult category, and reduced the number of subcategories from 21 to five. [3]

Reaction

This case was viewed as a win for Internet speech.

"As Congress has recognized, if an Internet proprietor had to police every posting that a third party put up, the cost would be enormous – and it would likely stifle communications." [9] The New York Times Editorial Section

"It was nice to see such a clean and decisive opinion—and a little ironic, as our law enforcement officials, who are supposed to enforce the laws rather than bypass them, got schooled in the limits of their legal authority." [10] Eric Goldman, Technology and Marketing Law Blog, October 29, 2009.

Some commentators felt, that Dart’s attack on Craigslist was hypocritical, considering that it was Craigslist’s cooperation with law enforcement that enabled his and other sheriffs’ offices around the country to prosecute illegal sex work and human traffickers. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

<i>Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.</i> 1995 decision of the New York Supreme Court

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794, is a 1995 decision of the New York Supreme Court holding that online service providers can be liable for the speech of their users. The ruling caused controversy among early supporters of the Internet, including some lawmakers, leading to the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996.

<i>Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.</i> 1991 US District Court decision

Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135, was a 1991 court decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which held that Internet service providers were subject to traditional defamation law for their hosted content.

<i>Zeran v. America Online, Inc.</i> 1997 United States court case

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230(c)(1) 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."

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tom Dart</span> American politician

Thomas J. Dart is an American attorney, politician, and law enforcement officer serving as the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois. He previously served as a member of both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly.

craigslist Classified advertisements website

Craigslist is a privately held American company operating a classified advertisements website with sections devoted to jobs, housing, for sale, items wanted, services, community service, gigs, résumés, and discussion forums.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

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.

<i>Chicago Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, Inc.</i>

Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, 519 F.3d 666, is a Seventh Circuit decision affirming a lower court ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides immunity to Internet service providers that "publish" classified ads that violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

<i>Goddard v. Google, Inc.</i>

Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, is a case in which Jenna Goddard ("Plaintiff") alleged that she and a class of similarly situated individuals were harmed by Google ("Defendant") as a result of clicking allegedly fraudulent web-based advertisements for mobile subscription services ("MSSPs"). The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the action was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

In Milgram v. Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, the New Jersey Superior Court held that online ticket resellers qualified for immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that such immunity preempted a state law consumer fraud statute. The opinion clarified the court's test for determining whether a defendant is acting as a publisher, the applicability of the CDA to e-commerce sites, and the extent of control that an online intermediary may exercise over user content without becoming an "information content provider" under the CDA. The opinion was hailed by one observer as a "rare defeat for a consumer protection agency" and the "biggest defense win of the year" in CDA § 230 litigation.

<i>Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.</i> Court case involving internet service providers and user content

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) rules that Yahoo!, Inc., as an Internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party. Plaintiff Cecilia Barnes made claims arising out of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.'s alleged failure to honor promises to remove offensive content about the plaintiff posted by a third party. The content consisted of a personal profile with nude photos of the Plaintiff and her contact information. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon had dismissed Barnes' complaint.

<i>Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC</i>

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act. However, the court found that Roommates.com was immune under Section 230 of the CDA for the “additional comments” portion of the website. This case was the first to place a limit on the broad immunity that Section 230(c) gives to service providers that has been established under Zeran v. AOL (1997).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Backpage</span> Defunct classified advertising website

Backpage was a classified advertising website founded in 2004 by the alternative newspaper chain New Times Inc./New Times Media as a rival to Craigslist.

<i>Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc.</i> 2013 Northern District of California Court case

Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 was a Northern District of California Court case in which the court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

<i>Florence v. Shurtleff</i> 2012 US federal court case

Florence v. Shurtleff, Civil No. 2:05CV000485, was a case in which the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued an order stating that individuals could not be prosecuted for posting adult content that was constitutionally protected on general access websites, nor could they be civilly liable for failing to prevent access to adult content, so long as the material is identifiable by filtering software. The order was the result of a 2005 lawsuit, The King's English v. Shurtleff, brought by Utah bookstores, artists, Internet Service Providers and the other organizations challenging the constitutionality of certain portions of a Utah law intended to protect minors from adult content.

<i>Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc.</i>

Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., 767 F.3d 894 (2014), is a 2014 ruling at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the legal liability of an Internet service provider for criminal offenses committed by its users. The ultimate ruling in the case has caused confusion over the amount of liability faced by service providers during such incidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FOSTA-SESTA</span> US communications/sex trafficking bills

FOSTA and SESTA are U.S. Senate and House bills which became law on April 11, 2018. They clarify the country's sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amend the Section 230 safe harbors of the Communications Decency Act to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from its immunity. Senate sponsor Rob Portman had previously led an investigation into the online classifieds service Backpage, and argued that Section 230 was protecting its "unscrupulous business practices" and was not designed to provide immunity to websites that facilitate sex trafficking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jim Larkin (publisher)</span> Arizona journalist and publisher (1949–2023)

James Anthony Larkin was an American publisher and journalist in Phoenix, Arizona, known for his influence in the alternative newspaper industry. He was largely responsible, along with business partner Michael Lacey, for his work with the Phoenix New Times, also known as New Times Inc.

References

  1. 1 2 U.S. Code: Title 47,230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
  2. ↑ The 2009 Time 100, April 30, 2009.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County v. Craigslist, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009).
  4. ↑ 10 charged in Internet prostitution; Illinois, Indiana ring placed ads on Craigslist, Chicago Tribune, December 23, 2007.
  5. 1 2 Craigslist sued for prostitution ads; Sheriff calls site 'largest source of prostitution' Chicago Tribune, March 6, 2009.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Dart's Complaint
  7. ↑ Craigslist's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
  8. ↑ Craigslist's Memo in Support of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
  9. ↑ A Win for Internet Speech, The New York Times, October 27, 2009.
  10. ↑ Eric Goldman's Technology and Marketing Law Blog, October 29, 2009.
  11. ↑ Lingel, J. An Internet for the People: The Politics and Promise of craigslist. (Princeton University Press, 2020).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.