Court Ruling: Section 230 Protects Sites... But Not Necessarily If They Promise To Remove Content

from the giving-up-your-safe-harbor dept

An interesting court ruling has added a wrinkle to section 230 safe harbors that protect a website from being liable for actions of its users. In this case, Yahoo was given immunity due to section 230, but may still be in trouble because a Yahoo employee promised to remove the content in question. The case involved a guy who posted profiles of his ex-girlfriend on Yahoo sites. The profiles in question included nude photos the ex-boyfriend had taken and her (real) contact info. He then posed as her in chat rooms and pointed men to her profile leading to numerous unwanted phone calls. Yahoo was apparently quite slow in responding to her complaints, but eventually someone promised to "take care of" the issue. However, two more months went by and nothing happened, so the woman sued (at which point the profiles were finally removed).

Now, it's pretty bad that Yahoo was slow to remove the profiles, but it still seems like the woman's case should have been against the ex-boyfriend who posted the profiles. That, of course, is the whole point of Section 230, so that the service/tool provider is not blamed for the actions of an individual, even though that individual is still responsible. There was some question over whether or not Section 230 still applied since this wasn't a defamation case, but the court (correctly) ruled that section 230 applies to much more than just defamation.

However, the more interesting part is that the court noted that since a Yahoo rep indicated she would "take care of" things, she may have established a separate "contract" outside of section 230 safe harbors, which was then violated. So... the lesson is, if you want to keep your safe harbors, don't promise stuff and fail to live up to it...
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: contract, section 230
Companies: yahoo


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    The Cenobyte, 7 May 2009 @ 11:06pm

    Yahoo has money

    She sued Yahoo cause they have money. Her Ex-boyfriend doesn't have must worth going after.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    David T, 8 May 2009 @ 3:08am

    I think it was about getting the photos off the web...

    It sounds like the lady wanted to get the photos down and after getting the runaround resorted to a lawsuit to speed things up. Perfectly reasonable, under the circumstances.

    I think Yahoo was irresponsible in this case, and the boyfriend should be prosecuted as well. This kind of stuff destroys careers.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Jack Sombra, 8 May 2009 @ 3:18am

    "but it still seems like the woman's case should have been against the ex-boyfriend who posted the profiles"
    Not really if Yahoo had done what they promised to do (and common decency demanded they do) she would have had no case, but as they did not they became party to boyfriends actions

    Section 230 is there to protect sites from actions beyond their reasonable control, it is not and should not be a blanket "get out of jail" card

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    cybertelecom, 8 May 2009 @ 4:18am

    origins of 230

    Of course "taking care of it" is how 230 got its start. Service providers were trying to do the rite thing and getting punished for it. Before 230 (aka the communications decency act), prodigy try to make a family friendly chat room, monitoring posted content and deleting it where necessary. Well john doe got on prodigy, and defamed a fiancial institution. The fiancial onstitution could not sue john doe, so it sue prodigy. The court ruled, bc prodigy was doing the rite thing creating a safe zone for kidz, prodigy was acting like an editor and therefor was a publisher. As a publisher, prodigy is liable for published defamation.

    Lesson learned: don't protect children

    Congress's response: not! We congress like isps the work to protect children. Therefore congress passed 230 as a part of the communications decency act _ effectively putting isps in the position of common carries, not being legally liable for the content carried.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 4:46am

    Who is to blame? Probably Senior Management.

    I suppose I am more concerned about why the original requests were not honored.

    Regardless of the content, if an agent acting on behalf of the company makes a promise to "take care of" the issue, yet, for one reason or another, such a promise was never actually delivered, it does open the company up for liability.

    Perhaps the agent who promised it would be "taken care of" was acting in a "Good Will" fashion, believing that that the company would have the resources, tools and ability to remove the profile, but nonetheless, a promise was made from an actor who works on behalf of the company.

    After the promise was made, perhaps they learned that the company wasn't properly equipped with the ability to adequately address these types of issues.

    With that in mind, future state is almost always owned by the Senior Leadership. They are the ones focused on these types of issues and often these types of problems should be take priority. Front line contacts should be enabled to service the user in what I believe, this is a simple request.

    To discern blame, one has to ask if internally, what actions were taken to ensure a good faith effort was employed. Was the issue rectified? Was it escalated?

    If no escalation was found, or if the employee was fired (Which would be an indication of non-compliance to policy, but in this situation, still not rectified) then Yahoo may very well be liable.

    Consider Citibank as an example. How much more capital do they need to be a solvent company in the future?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 5:00am

    A Goodwill effort

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 7:07am

    Come on Get Real

    "Now, it's pretty bad that Yahoo was slow to remove the profiles, but it still seems like the woman's case should have been against the ex-boyfriend who posted the profiles."

    if you were her lawyer which honey-pot would you go after?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 7:34am

    Get Real? According to feelings or the law?

    If a legitimate request was made and agreed upon between an agent acting on behalf of the company and the consumer, it could be well argued that a business transaction took place.

    The problem stems in timely delivery.

    A verbal contract (if over phone) is as enforceable as a written contract. Nonetheless, something was agreed upon, and the business collectively decided to own it, so a transaction occurred.

    Most businesses realize that the downstream effects of the business's inability to perform the said request in a timely manner as agreed upon are usually moved into the liability column to the business, and are mitigated at a fast rate.

    It's sad that it took a lawyer to have this actually accomplished.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    nasch, 8 May 2009 @ 11:21am

    The lesson

    So... the lesson is, if you want to keep your safe harbors, don't promise stuff and fail to live up to it...

    Unfortunately, the lesson could be just don't promise stuff. If Yahoo had completely ignored the woman, they would have been protected, right? They might have taken a PR hit, but legally they would be OK. So section 230 (which don't get me wrong I think is a good thing) may produce an incentive to be unresponsive to such complaints.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2009 @ 10:02pm

    Court Ruling

    A better solution would have been for the girlfriend to never have put herself into the position she found herself in.

    Biggest problem in the world today is stupid people doing stupid things then pointing fingers at someone else to blame.

    VRP

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.