Another Good Section 230 Ruling: Forum Owner Not Liable For Posts

from the good-to-see dept

Tue, Aug 25th 2009 7:22pm — Mike Masnick

It's good to see judges getting things right -- and more often than not, they're being both quick and smart when it comes to misguided lawsuits from plaintiffs against sites that host content, but don't publish it. The latest involves the owners of a bodybuilding forum website, bodybuilding.com, who were sued by a nutritional supplement maker, claiming that competitors had posted negative reviews on the site. But the judge tossed out the lawsuit against the forum operator using section 230. The supplement maker tried to argue that the forum owners had teamed up with the competitor in a conspiracy to say bad things about the supplement, but the judge didn't buy it. The only question was whether the website owners posted the content. They didn't. There's no case.

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: forums, liability, section 230

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2009 @ 7:43pm

Sadly, the story you link to doesn't have very much detail. It would be interesting to see how the judge determined that the site owners were not the posters. Did they provide the name / ip address / other information for the poster?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
..., 25 Aug 2009 @ 7:52pm

Re:
Burden of proof ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jared, 25 Aug 2009 @ 8:07pm

Dig a little
There are plenty of details; the entire case is available as a .pdf
Here are the highlights:
Syntrax Innovations said the website (bodybuilding.com) promoted libelous statements from competing companies which could be read by the public.

Section 230 states, basically, that no person or organization shall be held liable for content put forth by someone else.

It was in a forum, they didn't post it, they are not responsible, case dismissed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2009 @ 8:33pm

Re: Dig a little
Jared, again, the question stands: In order to prove they didn't post it, did they have to provide information about who did post it? Or can they just say "SODDI" and walk away?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Arthran, 26 Aug 2009 @ 3:30am

Re: Re: Dig a little
I believe it was as simple as:
I can prove thats not my IP/i didn't post it. Therefore its not my fault!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
..., 26 Aug 2009 @ 5:02am

Re: Re: Dig a little
AC, again - who has the burden of proof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 26 Aug 2009 @ 6:14am

Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
Agreed. Burden of proof is on the accuser. I can say that Dark Helmet is in a massive conspiracy to slander and libel me out of business but without a bit of proof to back it up I'm just a crackpot who thinks Mr. Helmet is out to get me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Aug 2009 @ 6:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
"Agreed. Burden of proof is on the accuser. I can say that Dark Helmet is in a massive conspiracy to slander and libel me out of business but without a bit of proof to back it up I'm just a crackpot who thinks Mr. Helmet is out to get me."

Interesting that you speak of accusing me of libel in a post I hadn't yet posted in, you dog beating, grandma humping, baby eater...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2009 @ 6:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
I've never humped anyone's grandma!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC's long lost brother, 26 Aug 2009 @ 7:41am

Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
Read the ruling. Cornelius (the plaintiff) alleged that there was a conspiracy, not that bodybuilding.com actually posted the comments. also, the case got dismissed on a number of grounds including lack of jusridiction. But the part you might want to read is that the judge ruled that the plaintiff did not present any FACTUAL evidence, only a theory. The ruling also stated that the judge had to cinsider the evidence in the best light of the PLAINTIFF and even then the judge through it out.

So to put it in simple terms since you keep asking: the suing company didn't provide enough for the judge to say "yes, this is sufficient to go to trial". the burden of proof here was VERY low for the plaintiffs. all they had to show was that there was enough to go to trial, not enough to win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2009 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Dig a little
Sorry, but since IP is only stored in a simple database that can easily be modified, how is that proof?

I mean, gee, give me a few hours with a tape from and armed robbery and the right equipment, and I can make it look like Obama did it. WOuld it be real? Nope. But it you are only going to accept that, well...

At bare minimum, the forum should be required to provide what information they have on the OD so that they can say "this dude isn't us". Otherwise to me, SODDI in a pretty empty answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
marriebell, 1 Sep 2009 @ 2:31am

I think that your are right,proof is very improtant for all.

Cellulite
[ link to this | view in thread ]