Ohio Attorney General Says Google Not Protected By Section 230 In Antitrust Lawsuit

from the ah,-local-laws dept

Wed, May 5th 2010 1:59am — Mike Masnick

Back in February, we highlighted a rather odd antitrust lawsuit brought against Google by a small company. Google had originally brought a lawsuit against the company in the Ohio state court system for failure to pay its advertising bills, and the company suddenly came back with a group of big name (expensive) lawyers (who just happen to have a connection with Microsoft), claiming antitrust violations against Google. Google filed to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that its protected in its actions under Section 230 -- and that this trumps any state laws. It appears that Ohio's Attorney General is siding with the local company. Eric Goldman points us to the news that the Attorney General is arguing that Section 230 does not apply here, saying that state laws trump Section 230 and that Google's reasoning for why Section 230 apply are flawed:

The reasoning is a bit of inside baseball, but it's interesting to note that even Ohio's Attorney General is now getting involved in this case, which started as a small time attempt to collect some unpaid bills... and has now turned into something much, much bigger.

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: antitrust, section 230
Companies: google

13 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ReallyEvilCanine, 5 May 2010 @ 4:02am

O. Hi. O.
The state has more stupid people than Mississippi and Louisiana combined. In the northeast, a river was on fire; in the southwest, there's effective martial law. Sums it up, really.
Oh, and yes, I've lived there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 5 May 2010 @ 4:55am

Microsoft involvement hints at antitrust, but not by Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 5:28am

you mean section 230 is not all singing and all dancing? another one of the masnicks basic principals of life is under attack!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  Someone didn't read the article or understands what's going on! Congrats in displaying your mental prowess! Or at effectively trolling me. Whichever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    hi mike. perhaps you should log on next time. you slipped saying 'trolling me'. you really should be careful!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I am beginning to think you not only write the original comments, but reply to youself as well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2010 @ 5:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        i think its all mike from start to finish. without it the traffic levels at techdirt seem to drop off pretty quickly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WammerJammer (profile), 5 May 2010 @ 7:51am

Ohio
They shot 4 students there didn't they. Haven't been there since. Ohio is to be avoided like a disease. Right wingers wishing they could fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 8:17am

"Someone didn't read the article or understands what's going on!" oh noes!

not only did you manage to completely change the meaning of your rebuttal by making 'understand' plural, but the singular would have been some piss poor grammar as you need to pick a tense as stick with it. Maybe its good you didnt log in to claim that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 8:22am

Ohio isn't that bad folks, and neither is this filing
As an Ohioan I'm a little confused as to what is with the hating here. Section 230 prevents a site/service from being held liable with what it's users say/do on a site, correct? In what way does that stop anti-trust issues of the hosting service from being relevant? I completely agree that this lawsuit is likely just a joke, and that Google will win. But, that doesn't mean their argument that section 230 is what should be used to throw out the case is any more valid. I understand our state is looked down upon, or something, but w/e I think the A.G. was right in this filing, THAT argument isn't good enough to just dismiss the case. Google should come up with another.

ohh and just for fun, I know the jokes about wanting to get away are funny, but does your state have that many astronauts? => http://www.cracked.com/article_18421_6-insane-coincidences-you-wont-believe-actually-happened_p2.htm l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2010 @ 10:31am
  
  Re: Ohio isn't that bad folks, and neither is this filing
  I agree that Section 230 alone seems like a poor reason to dismiss. If there is a claim in there that Google is acting anti-competitive by allowing the sale of keywords to competitors or some such, I can understand the invoking it on THAT particular section. (You know something like Google artificially raises the price because they sell our name to our competitors, and it should only be sold to us at the rate we want or something like that.)
  
  That said, if the AG just said that, it probably would not be any sort of concern. What raises my eyebrows and concern of the state, is the indication that that section does not apply in Ohio. Now that the AG believes that Section 230 cannot be applied in the state, and if the courts agree, it opens up Ohio as the place to sue, potentially.
  
  At least... that is what I see as the problem in the statements. (Not being a lawyer or anything.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 5 May 2010 @ 9:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Ohio isn't that bad folks, and neither is this filing
    It sounds to me (no lawyer here) like he's not saying section 230 doesn't apply in Ohio, but that if section 230 conflicts with a state law, then the state law takes precedence. Which if I understand correctly is completely backwards - federal law takes precedence over state, does it not?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pontifex (profile), 5 May 2010 @ 3:08pm

Has the Attorney General ever heard of the Supremacy Clause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]