Zeran v. America Online, Inc.

Last updated

Zeran v. America Online, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Full case name Kenneth M. Zeran v. America Online, Incorporated
ArguedOctober 2, 1997
DecidedNovember 12, 1997
Citation129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
Case history
Prior history958 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997)
Subsequent history Cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937(1998), [1]
Holding
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Internet service providers from liability for tort offenses committed by their users.
Court membership
Judges sitting J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Donald S. Russell, Terrence Boyle (E.D.N.C.)
Case opinions
MajorityWilkinson, joined by Russell, Boyle
Laws applied
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), [2] 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. The statute states 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." [3]

Contents

The Fourth Circuit held that plaintiff Kenneth Zeran's claims of malfeasance by America Online were barred by the statute, holding that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service." In the words of the Zeran court:

[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. ... Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication ... [4]

Facts

On April 25, 1995, six days after the Oklahoma City bombing, a message was anonymously posted on the America Online (AOL) "Michigan Military Movement" bulletin board advertising items with slogans glorifying the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. [5] [6] These items included slogans such as, "Visit Oklahoma ... It's a BLAST!!!", "Putting the kids to bed ... Oklahoma 1995", and "McVeigh for President 1996". [5] Persons interested in making a purchase were instructed to call the plaintiff, Kenneth Zeran, whose home phone number was posted in the message but who had neither posted the message nor had anything to do with its content. Shortly after the posting of the message, Zeran began receiving a barrage of threatening calls. He contacted AOL to have the message removed, which they soon did. [5]

After the removal of the message, however, another anonymously posted advertisement stated that the shirts had "SOLD OUT" and that items with new slogans had been made available. The new shirts included slogans such as "Forget the rescue, let the maggots take over - Oklahoma 1995", and "Finally a day care center that keeps the kids quiet - Oklahoma 1995". [5] Zeran again contacted AOL to have the message removed from the bulletin board, which they again did. At this point, per AOL's recommendation, Zeran contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation; however, for the next week, new messages continued to appear.

On May 1, 1995, the number of calls and threats rose to a crescendo when a conservative radio personality known as Mark Shannon read the message on an Oklahoma City radio station, KRXO, then owned by Diamond Broadcasting. [7] At this point, Zeran's house was placed under protective surveillance, and he was unable to use his telephone for his home business, as the threatening calls were coming in approximately every two minutes. This continued until at least May 15, by which time the number of calls fell to approximately 15 per day. [5]

On January 4, 1996, Zeran filed suit against Diamond Broadcasting, and in April of the same year, he filed a separate suit against AOL. [5] [7]

Lower court ruling

At the district court for the Eastern District of Virginia Zeran alleged that as a distributor of media content, AOL was "negligent in failing to respond adequately to the bogus notices on its bulletin board after being made aware of their malicious and fraudulent nature." [5] In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , a New York district court had found that "a defendant could not be held liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements." [8] In this case, since AOL did not dispute its knowledge of the defamatory statements, Zeran claimed to have grounds for alleging AOL's participation in the defamation of his character. In response to this claim, AOL argued that Section 230, which was passed in 1996, preempted the New York ruling, which was issued in 1991 and based on that state's law at the time. [5]

The questions at issue in the lower court ruling were determined to be:

(1) whether the CDA preempts a state law negligence claim against an interactive computer service provider ... and

(2) whether the CDA applies to causes of action brought after its effective date, but arising out of events occurring before that date. [5]

Preemption of the state negligence claim by Section 230

In analyzing the preemption of the state laws, the court determined that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution demands preemption of state laws where they conflict with federal laws. The court analyzed three ways in which state and federal laws could conflict:

  1. Impossibility of compliance with both state and federal law
  2. Conflict of language between state and federal law
  3. Conflict between the state law and the "purposes and objectives of Congress" [5]

In analyzing the first theory of direct conflict, the court found that AOL could "comply with the CDA [Section 230] even if it is subjected to state liability for negligent distribution of defamatory material," and thus found that the federal law did not preempt the state laws. [5]

With regard to the second and third theories of conflict however, the court found that Section 230 did preempt the state laws. Based on the findings in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. that CompuServe "was a distributor for the purposes of defamation liability," [8] Zeran contended that AOL was a distributor of information, not a publisher, and because Section 230 was targeted specifically at publishers, [3] Zeran alleged that there was not a conflict between the two statutes. The court found, however, that distributors are a subset of publishers, and that as a result Section 230 conflicted with the state defamation law, thus preempting it. [5]

In their analysis of the third theory of state and federal conflict, the court stated that,

Congress' clear objective in passing §230 of the CDA was to encourage the development of technologies, procedures and techniques by which objectionable material could be blocked or deleted. [5]

Since distributor liability would have the effect of disincentivizing the filtering of content by third parties, the court found that such laws were in conflict with the "purpose and objectives of congress," and were thus preempted. [5]

Retroactive application of Section 230

Zeran's final claim was that even if the state laws are preempted by Section 230, it should not provide immunity to AOL in this case because the messages were posted on the AOL bulletin board before Section 230's enactment. In analyzing this claim, the court used the Landgraf test, which states that "a court must ... determine whether Congress has clearly expressed [a] statute's intended temporal reach." [5]

To this question, the court pointed out that in Section 230 [3] Congress clearly stated that "no cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." It reasons that since "no cause of action may be brought," the timing of the posting of the message is immaterial, and Section 230 must apply retroactively. [5]

Appeals Court ruling

After reviewing the proceedings of the lower court, the Fourth Circuit again granted judgment in favor of AOL. [2] In this proceeding, Zeran again claimed a distinction between distributors and publishers, citing Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [9] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [10] In those cases, such a distinction was made, however the court held that Zeran "misapprehends... the significance of that distinction for the legal issue we consider here." [2] In the opinion of the court, distributors are a subset of publishers, and are thus protected under Section 230.

The second claim Zeran made on appeal was again that Section 230 should not apply retroactively. Again the court cited a specific provision of the statute, which states that "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." [2] The court believed that this statute indicated that, "Congress clearly expressed its intent that the statute apply to any complaint instituted after its effective date," and that therefore any issue of retroactivity was moot. [2]

After having lost at the district court and on appeal, Zeran, making similar allegations as above, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari . On June 22, 1998, the high court declined to hear the case. [1]

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.

<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.

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 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.

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.

A person who is found to have published a defamatory statement may evoke a defence of innocent dissemination, which absolves them of liability provided that they had no knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statement, and that their failure to detect the defamatory content was not due to negligence. The defence, sometimes also known as "mechanical distributor", is of concern to Internet Service Providers because of their potential liability for defamatory material posted by their subscribers.

Randall Boe is the former General Counsel for AOL and has been involved in several cases regarding internet law. He was named the commissioner of the Arena Football League in March 2018.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<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>Doe v. MySpace, Inc.</i>

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.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

<i>Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC</i> US legal case

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398, is a case in which the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Roommates material development test for limiting immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). A libel suit was pursued by Sarah Jones, formerly a high school teacher and Cincinnati Ben–Gals cheerleader, against Dirty World, LLC, operator of the celebrity gossip web site TheDirty.com, concerning two postings on TheDirty.com that Dirty World refused to remove.

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).

<i>Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.</i>

Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, is a 2009 court opinion in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the standing requirements necessary for private plaintiffs to bring suit under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. ch. 103, as well as the scope of the CAN-SPAM Act's federal preemption. Prior to this case, the CAN-SPAM Act's standing requirements had not been addressed at the Court of Appeals level, and only the Fourth Circuit had addressed the CAN-SPAM Act's preemptive scope.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EARN IT Act</span> Proposed US legislation

The EARN IT Act is a proposed legislation first introduced in 2020 in the United States Congress. It aims to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which allows operators of websites to remove user-posted content that they deem inappropriate, and provides them with immunity from civil lawsuits related to such posting. Section 230 is the only surviving portion of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996.

<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 Bound Volume number 524 of the U.S. Supreme Court
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Opinion" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 31, 2008. Retrieved March 18, 2009. The opinion of the Fourth Circuit
  3. 1 2 3 US CODE: Title 47,230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
  4. ↑ 129 F.3d 330.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 "Zeran v. AOL Opinion". Archived from the original on December 23, 2008. Retrieved March 18, 2009. Opinion of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia
  6. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 5, 2008. Retrieved March 18, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) Zeran's briefing to the Fourth Circuit
  7. 1 2 "Zeran v. Diamond Broadcasting, Inc. Order". Archived from the original on March 1, 2009. Retrieved March 18, 2009. The opinion of the court in Zeran v. Diamond Broadcasting
  8. 1 2 "Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved March 18, 2009.
  9. ↑ Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , 776F. Supp.135 (S.D.N.Y.1991).
  10. ↑ Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. , 23Media L. Rep.1794 ( N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).
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.