New Law Could Hold Service Providers Liable For Investor Misrepresentations
from the safe-harbors? dept
In general, we're big fans of the safe harbors found in the DMCA and the CDA, as they do what common sense should do instead: make sure that a third party is not held liable for actions of its users. Unfortunately, common sense isn't always so common, and some people have trouble understanding this concept. In fact, it appears that a new bill may go in the other direction when it comes to investor information. A proposed bill that is supposedly designed to allow the SEC to better protect investors from bad info would potentially hold service providers liable for information posted by users if the service provider has "actual knowledge that the material contains a misrepresentation [or] in the absence of actual knowledge, is aware of facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a misrepresentation [and] upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, fails to act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material."That would go against the basic Section 230 CDA safe harbors, so I'm not quite sure how you reconcile the two. In general, you can understand why it seems to make sense that service provider needs to remove such info, but it opens up all sorts of questions. Say someone in our comments posts some sort of misrepresentation. Are we now going to need to police that? If someone else tells us it's a misrepresentation, will we now need to delete the comment? Are we expected to investigate whether or not some random comment on the site is a misrepresentation? Policing such things on forums all over the place would place an incredible burden on any website that allows user generated content. Why not keep the Section 230 safe harbors and focus on holding the actual parties (those who posted it) responsible, rather than the tools they use?
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: investors, liability, safe harbors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lesson 1: Don't play with money you can't afford to loose.
Unfortunately, as more people get into investing, a healthy number of dumb people are playing craps with their retirement. Thomas Tessler once said "A fool and his money are soon parted."
This amounts to nothing more than incenticising foolish investing, by saying "Uncle Sam has my back"
The SEC is going about it wrong and shouldn't protect foolish investors when they couldn't even figure out what the hell Bernie Madoff was doing.
Smart investors should see that their money is best managed in a reputable fund, and don't ever, ever, play with money you can't afford to loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lesson 1: Don't play with money you can't afford to loose.
Aside from the multiple mis-spellings and grammar mistakes; I find myself in agreement with the primary idea which you have seen fit to post.
Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lesson 1: Don't play with money you can't afford to loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lesson 1: Don't play with money you can't afford to loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YESSS!
FINALLY a legitimate reason to summarily dismiss and delete the "comments" from the one "anonymous" coward that doesn't think we all recognize his posts....
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YESSS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YESSS!
I also completely agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YESSS!
DH is right on. Why haven't we done this before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YESSS!
Well thanks, but Designated Hitter was actually being sarcastic. I actually don't mind the trolls and industry supporters, even the ones that are pretty clearly involved at some level or another in a way that throws into question their honesty.
Even when they are being blatant tools and lying/jiving/antogonizing/etc., Mike's and others responses have given me additional information and ways to rebut certain reasonable sounding but ultimately unsound arguments.
I can only hope I've done the same for someone at some point.
Sniff....sniff...now I'm getting all sentimental and shit....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Agree
http://www.foxnews.com/
I'm sure they realize much of the material is bogus and therefore they are complicit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, why not just CORRECT the misrepresentation in a following post hence encouraging DISCUSSION. Isn't that the point of this? That way we can all learn from one anothers mistakes. But their whole agenda is to prevent learning and to promote indoctrination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYT to FOX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Madame Zelda provides bad investment advice too.
Most of the time, Madame Zelda is correct, but sometimes she's wrong. Dead wrong.
I will contact Paul Kanjorski, about this travesty and hopefully the bill will be fixed before it goes to The Hill. There are a lot of nefarious psychics out there, and we should band together against bad readings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you argue here that we should "focus on holding the actual parties (those who posted it) responsible", but in the next post you will defend, as in the past, the right of the service provider to protect the identity of the poster.
It seems that this would allow law enforcement to put some pressure on the service provider in cases where their forum is used to commit a crime. Not necessarily a bad thing, but, like all tools, it can be misused or abused. What's the alternative? Let naive people get taken, hoping that they will learn? It did not work very well for spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His vague answer for this will be that the companies will have to spend 6 months prove without a doubt in a court of law that the posting is a problem, and then get a court order, which will reveal that the service provider only keeps records for 30 days and that the person is untraceable. He would appose the keeping of records for longer because it would be a burder on the site owners, and would some how violate some people's free speech and privacy expectations. Basically, set the rules up so that it is impossible to go after anything said or done online, because it's some sort of mega-free speech that is protected by the digital gods.
He will soon post to say I am full of crap, but after reading this site for a while, you will catch on to where he is going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is easier? Destroying all germs or inoculating everyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
XYZ Corp is not evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]