Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com
2008 WL 879293 (9th Cir. 2008)
Filed April 3, 2008
Facts: Defendant, Roommates.com, operates a website that matches people desiring to rent a room in their home to those searching for a room to occupy based upon certain criteria. To utilize Defendant’s website, an interested party must create a user profile. This entails disclosing basic information, such as the party’s name, address, and email. In addition to basic information, the website also requires that a user reveal her sex, sexual orientation, and whether he/she has children. The user is also asked to state her preferences regarding the three criteria. The website also allows users to post additional comments relating to their housing preferences. Once an interested party creates a profile, she can search other profiles, email other users, and receive potential matches without paying a fee. If a user pays a monthly fee, she gains access to others’ emails and additional comments. The subject of this appeal is the liability of a website operator for alleged housing discrimination.
Procedural History: Plaintiff, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, sued Defendant in federal court, alleging that the operation of its website violated the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California housing laws. In response, Defendant claimed that it was immune under the Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim holding that Defendant was immune under Section 230 of the CDA. It did not rule on the FHA or California state housing issues. Plaintiff appealed the judgment.
Rules:
Under the CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), “No provider… of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.â€
The CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3), defines an “information content provider†as an entity “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the offending content.â€
Although an “interactive computer service†can be considered an “information content provider†if it chooses to edit third party content, the Seventh Circuit has determined that an entity should not be denied immunity when its objective is screening offensive material. See Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (7th Cir. March 14, 2008).
Holding: The court analyzed the scope of Defendant’s immunity under the CDA with regard to three functions of its website. First, it examined whether Defendant was liable for potentially discriminatory content generated from questions posed during the registration process. Because Defendant created the questions and provided a limited choice of answers, the court held that it was not only an “interactive computer service,†but also an “information content provider.†As such, it is not entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the CDA. However, the court did not rule on the FHA or any California violations. Second, the court examined whether Defendant’s practice of sorting and displaying potentially discriminatory preferences on user profiles was lawful. Again, the court held that Defendant was not entitled to CDA immunity for the website’s search and display functions because it was not merely a passive transmitter of discriminatory information, but an “information content provider.†The court distinguished Defendant’s website from generic search engines, which search passively by allowing users to select their own search criteria. In contrast, Defendant’s search function actively creates its content by limiting its search terms to potentially discriminatory criteria. Finally, the court examined whether Defendant could be held liable for discriminatory statements located in users’ additional comments. In this instance, the court held that Defendant was immune under the CDA because it did nothing more than passively display content provider by its users. The Ninth Circuit did not reach this result unanimously. Three circuit judges wrote a lengthy dissent that argued that the majority’s decision to extend liability to internet service providers like Roommates.com will chill the development of interactive computer services.
Interesting Dicta: A website similar to Roommates.com would be immune under the CDA as long as it did not dictate that its users respond to discriminatory criteria, which it utilized for matching housing preferences.
2008 WL 879293 (9th Cir. 2008)
Filed April 3, 2008
Facts: Defendant, Roommates.com, operates a website that matches people desiring to rent a room in their home to those searching for a room to occupy based upon certain criteria. To utilize Defendant’s website, an interested party must create a user profile. This entails disclosing basic information, such as the party’s name, address, and email. In addition to basic information, the website also requires that a user reveal her sex, sexual orientation, and whether he/she has children. The user is also asked to state her preferences regarding the three criteria. The website also allows users to post additional comments relating to their housing preferences. Once an interested party creates a profile, she can search other profiles, email other users, and receive potential matches without paying a fee. If a user pays a monthly fee, she gains access to others’ emails and additional comments. The subject of this appeal is the liability of a website operator for alleged housing discrimination.
Procedural History: Plaintiff, Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, sued Defendant in federal court, alleging that the operation of its website violated the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and California housing laws. In response, Defendant claimed that it was immune under the Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim holding that Defendant was immune under Section 230 of the CDA. It did not rule on the FHA or California state housing issues. Plaintiff appealed the judgment.
Rules:
Under the CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), “No provider… of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.â€
The CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3), defines an “information content provider†as an entity “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the offending content.â€
Although an “interactive computer service†can be considered an “information content provider†if it chooses to edit third party content, the Seventh Circuit has determined that an entity should not be denied immunity when its objective is screening offensive material. See Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc. (7th Cir. March 14, 2008).
Holding: The court analyzed the scope of Defendant’s immunity under the CDA with regard to three functions of its website. First, it examined whether Defendant was liable for potentially discriminatory content generated from questions posed during the registration process. Because Defendant created the questions and provided a limited choice of answers, the court held that it was not only an “interactive computer service,†but also an “information content provider.†As such, it is not entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the CDA. However, the court did not rule on the FHA or any California violations. Second, the court examined whether Defendant’s practice of sorting and displaying potentially discriminatory preferences on user profiles was lawful. Again, the court held that Defendant was not entitled to CDA immunity for the website’s search and display functions because it was not merely a passive transmitter of discriminatory information, but an “information content provider.†The court distinguished Defendant’s website from generic search engines, which search passively by allowing users to select their own search criteria. In contrast, Defendant’s search function actively creates its content by limiting its search terms to potentially discriminatory criteria. Finally, the court examined whether Defendant could be held liable for discriminatory statements located in users’ additional comments. In this instance, the court held that Defendant was immune under the CDA because it did nothing more than passively display content provider by its users. The Ninth Circuit did not reach this result unanimously. Three circuit judges wrote a lengthy dissent that argued that the majority’s decision to extend liability to internet service providers like Roommates.com will chill the development of interactive computer services.
Interesting Dicta: A website similar to Roommates.com would be immune under the CDA as long as it did not dictate that its users respond to discriminatory criteria, which it utilized for matching housing preferences.