Comments on: 9th Cir.: Adding an “Additional Layer of Information” to User-Generated Content Is Not Immunized by the CDA

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 20 May 2007 20:59:27 +0000

The chances that the site actually violated the FHA seem remote; the FHA exempts an owner of a building containing up to four units, so long as the owner occupies the building. It’s a little gray with respect to renters, but it’s hard to imagine that the same exemption wouldn’t apply.

I think, however, that the fair housing organization was trying to get the site on the “make, print or publish” hook of the FHA. What’s the difference then, if the site loses CDA immunity based on its use of the information rather than publication, but can still conceivably be liable for publication under a different law?

By: Overlawyered

Overlawyered — Sun, 20 May 2007 15:23:09 +0000

Web 2.0 beware: Fair Housing Counsel of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com…

We’ve extensively covered the various fair-housing complaints against Craiglist (Aug. 10, 2005; Feb. 9, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, Jun. 28, Dec. 1, 2006) for that service’s hosting ads for housing and roommates that fall afoul……

By: Joe Gratz

Joe Gratz — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:44:42 +0000

Daniel:

No, the unstructured “additional comments” are immune under section 230. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the opinion:

We conclude that Roommate’s involvement is insufficient
to make it a content provider of these comments. Roommate’s
open-ended question suggests no particular
information that is to be provided by members; Roommate
certainly does not prompt, encourage or solicit any of the
inflammatory information provided by some of its members.
Nor does Roommate use the information in the “Additional
Comments” section to limit or channel access to listings.
Roommate is therefore not “responsible, in whole or in part,
for the creation or development of” its users’ answers to the
open-ended “Additional Comments” form, and is immune
from liability for publishing these responses. 47 U.S.C.
§ 230(c), (f)(3); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031.

By: Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog — Thu, 17 May 2007 10:46:49 +0000

Ninth Circuit Screws Up 47 USC 230–Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com…

By Eric Goldman Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, CV-03-09386-PA (9th Cir. May 15, 2007) Just……

By: Substantial Similarity › Ninth Circuit Breaks Internet

Substantial Similarity › Ninth Circuit Breaks Internet — Thu, 17 May 2007 06:08:13 +0000

[...] commentary from Eugene Volokh, Eric Goldman, and Joe Gratz. Judge Reinhardt in his partial dissent would have held Roommates potentially liable for [...]

By: Daniel Pitts

Daniel Pitts — Thu, 17 May 2007 01:41:42 +0000

The added layer theory seems a bit weak to me. I can search Google for all sorts of content, so Google adds that layer. It also seems interesting that the Additional Comments (if I read correctly) lost immunity.