Christianne Carafano, a/k/a Chase Masterson v Metrosplash.com, Inc. 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003)
Facts:
Matchmaker.com is an interactive dating service that uses an extensive questionnaire and essay questions to match members based on similar answers. Matchmaker.com's policy forbids members from posting identifying information within their profiles or posting improper photos. Matchmaker.com reviews uploaded photos for impropriety before posting them, but does not check individual profiles to check for compliance with the policies.
In October 23, 1999, an unknown person used a free trial of the service to post a fake profile of Christianne Carafano (better known by her stage name as Chase Masterson) under the username "Chase529". This fake profile contained Carafano's real address and an e-mail address that, when contacted, responded with her real address and telephone number. The profile contained actual promotional pictures of Carafano from movies she had acted in, and although it did not include her stage name it listed two of her movies. The profile made statements that Carafano was "looking for a hard and dominant man," that she "liked being controlled by a man," and that she was "looking for a one-night stand."
Before Carafano learned of the profile, she started receiving threatening phone calls, e-mails, and faxes at home and work. Carafano and her son ultimately had to leave their home for several months because they did not feel safe. Carafano finally learned of the profile on November 6, 1999. She contacted Matchmaker.com and demanded the profile be taken down immediately. Matchmaker.com did not remove the profile immediately, but did block access until it was removed on November 9.
Procedural Posture:
Carafano filed suit in California against Matchmaker.com alleging invasion of privacy, misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence. The defendants removed it to federal court, where the district court granted their motion for summary judgment based on no causes of action, but rejected defendant's argument that they qualified for immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) because they had provided part of the profile content. Carafano appealed.
Issue:
Are Carafano's claims barred by § 230(c)(1), which 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�
Holding:
Yes.
Analysis:
Congress passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to "promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material." Part of this intent is reflected in grant of immunity to most service providers when false or defamatory information is posted by third party users. Courts have held that the immunity from § 230(c) is broad, and so long as an "interactive service provider" does not also function as an "information content provider," the ISP is immune from liability.
The statute defines an "interactive service provider" as "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.†47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2).
An "information content provider" is "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.†47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).
The court found that here, Matchmaker.com did not function as an "information content provider" even though it had initially created the questionnaire and essay questions used. The court found the fact that Matchmaker.com classified user characteristics into discrete categories and collected responses to specific essay questions did not transform Matchmaker.com into a “developer†of the underlying misinformation on the profile. Alternatively, the court found that even if the activity did make Matchmaker.com an "information content provider" the statute still precludes treatment of an ISP as a publisher or speaker for “any information provided by another information content provider" and Carafano's claim would still be barred unless Matchmaker.com had created the information at issue. While the court opined that the consequences of the situation were "seriously and utterly deplorable," it held that because Matchmaker.com did not play a significant role in creating, developing or transforming the relevant information, it is afforded immunity from suit.
Facts:
Matchmaker.com is an interactive dating service that uses an extensive questionnaire and essay questions to match members based on similar answers. Matchmaker.com's policy forbids members from posting identifying information within their profiles or posting improper photos. Matchmaker.com reviews uploaded photos for impropriety before posting them, but does not check individual profiles to check for compliance with the policies.
In October 23, 1999, an unknown person used a free trial of the service to post a fake profile of Christianne Carafano (better known by her stage name as Chase Masterson) under the username "Chase529". This fake profile contained Carafano's real address and an e-mail address that, when contacted, responded with her real address and telephone number. The profile contained actual promotional pictures of Carafano from movies she had acted in, and although it did not include her stage name it listed two of her movies. The profile made statements that Carafano was "looking for a hard and dominant man," that she "liked being controlled by a man," and that she was "looking for a one-night stand."
Before Carafano learned of the profile, she started receiving threatening phone calls, e-mails, and faxes at home and work. Carafano and her son ultimately had to leave their home for several months because they did not feel safe. Carafano finally learned of the profile on November 6, 1999. She contacted Matchmaker.com and demanded the profile be taken down immediately. Matchmaker.com did not remove the profile immediately, but did block access until it was removed on November 9.
Procedural Posture:
Carafano filed suit in California against Matchmaker.com alleging invasion of privacy, misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence. The defendants removed it to federal court, where the district court granted their motion for summary judgment based on no causes of action, but rejected defendant's argument that they qualified for immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) because they had provided part of the profile content. Carafano appealed.
Issue:
Are Carafano's claims barred by § 230(c)(1), which 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�
Holding:
Yes.
Analysis:
Congress passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to "promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material." Part of this intent is reflected in grant of immunity to most service providers when false or defamatory information is posted by third party users. Courts have held that the immunity from § 230(c) is broad, and so long as an "interactive service provider" does not also function as an "information content provider," the ISP is immune from liability.
The statute defines an "interactive service provider" as "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.†47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2).
An "information content provider" is "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.†47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).
The court found that here, Matchmaker.com did not function as an "information content provider" even though it had initially created the questionnaire and essay questions used. The court found the fact that Matchmaker.com classified user characteristics into discrete categories and collected responses to specific essay questions did not transform Matchmaker.com into a “developer†of the underlying misinformation on the profile. Alternatively, the court found that even if the activity did make Matchmaker.com an "information content provider" the statute still precludes treatment of an ISP as a publisher or speaker for “any information provided by another information content provider" and Carafano's claim would still be barred unless Matchmaker.com had created the information at issue. While the court opined that the consequences of the situation were "seriously and utterly deplorable," it held that because Matchmaker.com did not play a significant role in creating, developing or transforming the relevant information, it is afforded immunity from suit.