Doe v. MySpace, Inc.

Last updated

Doe v. MySpace Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameJane Doe, Individually and as next friend of Julie Doe, a minor v. MySpace, Inc.; News Corporation
DecidedMay 16, 2008
Citation(s)528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008)
Case history
Prior history474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D. Tex. 2007)
Holding
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields an Internet service provider from legal liability for criminal offenses committed by its users.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting William Lockhart Garwood, Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod
Case opinions
MajorityClement, joined by Garwood, Elrod
Laws applied
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (2008), is a 2008 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that MySpace was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from liability for a sexual assault of a minor that arose from posts on the MySpace platform. [1]

Contents

Facts

In 2005, the plaintiff known as Julie Doe, then age thirteen, lied about her age, claimed to be eighteen years old, and created a profile on MySpace.com. In April 2006, nineteen-year-old Pete Solis contacted Julie through her MySpace page. The two parties communicated offline and formed a relationship. They met in person on May 12, 2006, and Solis sexually assaulted Julie at this meeting. On May 13, 2006, Julie's mother called the police in Austin, Texas to report the sexual assault of her daughter. [2]

Julie and her mother sued MySpace and its parent company, News Corp., for negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. [2] (They also sued Solis for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a separate proceeding.) The plaintiffs first filed a lawsuit in Texas state court (their home state) and also in Bronx County, New York (near the News. Corp headquarters). After various arguments about the proper venue for the case, it was ultimately heard at the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. [2]

District court ruling

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of negligence, as MySpace was shielded from such claims when arising from the behavior of third-party users, by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as well as Texas common law. [2]

Both parties conceded that MySpace was an "interactive computer service" as defined by Section 230. The district court held that Congress intended that provision to encourage websites to create forums for people to exchange thoughts and ideas by protecting interactive computer services from potential liability for each post submitted by their users. This intent was upheld by circuit court precedents including Carafano v. Metrosplash.com and Zeran v. America Online, Inc. , thus shielding MySpace from legal liability for the actions of its users. [2]

The district court also held that Section 230 shields "interactive computer services" from liability for the actions of their users:

"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..." [3]

Thus, MySpace could not be considered the publisher of the content created by its users, and should not accept the responsibility of that role.

The district court also held that the plaintiffs failed to make a compelling claim that MySpace had committed fraud or engaged in negligent misrepresentation. [2] This was due to the requirements of Texas state law that a duty of care be established and that evidence of a breach of that duty must be presented in court. [4] The court held that a party has "no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third person or control the conduct of another." [5] Thus, the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for negligence because MySpace had no duty to protect its user Julie Doe from Solis's criminal sexual assault. [2]

Appeals court ruling

Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision on their negligence claim, arguing that Section 230 is both inapplicable regarding criminal matters and does not fully shield MySpace from taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its underage users. [1] The plaintiffs also argued that even though MySpace was not specifically a publisher under the law, it still had enough influence in designing the "virtual world" of its site that it bore some responsibility for the illegal behavior of its users. [1]

On May 16, 2008, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that Section 230 shielded MySpace from the plaintiffs' claims. [1] The circuit court added that per Green v. America Online, Inc. , Section 230 protects against claims of "failure to protect" the users of an online service. [6] The court held that Section 230 offers immunity for online services "broadly in all cases arising from the publication of user-generated content." [1]

While Julie Doe and her mother had a solid case against the offender Pete Solis, the circuit court rejected their claim that MySpace was responsible for the in-person meeting that led to the sexual assault, and also rejected their claim that MySpace should have designed safety procedures for minors, particularly because that claim had not been made at the district court. [1] Thus, the plaintiffs' claim was entirely about the content of the messages between the two parties, and content is covered under Section 230, while prosecution of the crime committed by Solis could be handled in a separate criminal trial. [1] The court also held that MySpace had not committed negligence by failing to install safeguards for the protection of its underage users. [7]

Pete Solis was charged with felony sexual assault of a minor and indicted in criminal court. [8] Julie Doe and her mother attempted to appeal the Fifth Circuit ruling in favor of MySpace to the Supreme Court of the United States, but certiorari was denied. [9]

Impact

While previous rulings had clarified that Section 230 absolved service providers from legal liability for the speech-related offenses committed by their third-party users, this ruling was the first to address liability for criminal offenses committed by users outside of the website in question, and found that Section 230 covers that type of transgression as well. [10] However, there was some criticism of the ruling for allowing MySpace to skirt responsibility for the millions of underage users of its platform and the indecency to which they were exposed. [11]

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.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

<i>Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.</i>

Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, is an American legal case dealing with the protection provided an internet service provider under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) United States Code Title 47 section 230(c)(1). It is also known as the Star Trek actress case as the plaintiff, Chase Masterson – whose legal name is Christianne Carafano – is well known for having appeared on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The case demonstrated that the use of an online form with some multiple choice selections does not override the protections against liability for the actions of users or anonymous members of a Web-based service.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

<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."

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

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.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code 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>Doe v. Unocal Corp.</i>

Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

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>

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).

<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.

<i>OKroley v. Fastcase, Inc.</i>

O'Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc.,, aff'd, No. 15-6336, is a U.S. court case concerning defamation in online search results. The plaintiff, Colin O'Kroley, alleged that Google's automated snippet algorithm created a defamatory search result by falsely implying that the plaintiff had been accused of indecency with a child. The District Court granted Google's motion to dismiss the case, and found that Google had immunity from the defamation charges under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects interactive computer services from being held liable as a speaker or publisher for information provided by a third-party information content provider. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

<i>Green v. America Online, Inc.</i>

Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (2003), was a case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, over the protections granted to Internet service providers from legal liability for tort offenses committed by their users.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doe v. MySpace Inc., 528F.3d413 ( 5th Cir. 2008).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doe v. MySpace Inc., 474F. Supp. 2d843 ( W.D. Tex. 2007).
  3. ↑ 47 U.S.C.   § 230(c)(2)(A) .
  4. ↑ Western Invs., Inc. v. Urena,162S.W.3d547, 550(Tex.2005).
  5. ↑ Walker v. Harris,924S.W.2d375, 377(Tex.1996).
  6. ↑ Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465, (3rd Cir., 2003).
  7. ↑ "Court Sides With MySpace In Suit Over Sex Assault". www.courthousenews.com. May 10, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  8. ↑ "MySpace Wins Sex Abuse Suit". Forbes. February 14, 2007. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  9. ↑ Thomas O'Toole, High Court Declines Review of MySpace CDA 230 Case , E-Commerce and Tech Law Blog (Nov. 17, 2008).
  10. ↑ Steadman, Elizabeth P. (2007). "Myspace, but Whose Responsibility - Liability of Social-Networking Websites When Offline Sexual Assault of Minors Follows Online Interaction". Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal. 14 (2): 363–398.
  11. ↑ Freivogel, William H. (2001). "Does the Communications Decency Act Foster Indecency?". Communications Law and Policy. 16 (1): 17–48. doi:10.1080/10811680.2011.536496. S2CID   143497576.
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.