Lawyer: Yahoo Lost Sec. 230 Immunity Because It Didn't Hand Over Personal Info; Court: GTFO
from the please-allow-me-to-entertain-you-with-my-legal-theories dept
Sometimes litigants start out with a good case... or at least a credible one. Then they ruin it by getting creative. The day-to-day work of adjudicating may be a bit dry, but novel legal arguments rarely provide anything more than entertainment for bystanders.
Lawyer and author Thomas Hall originally sued three individuals for alleged online harassment. According to his first complaint, Hall had drawn the ire of supposed white supremacists who bombarded him with hundreds of "threatening and disparaging emails." Hall sought a restraining order against the three defendants, but apparently needed a bit more personal info before he could get that order approved. [via Eric Goldman]
That's when he got creative. Having received no help from Yahoo in identifying the people behind the alleged harassment campaign, Hall decided to sue Yahoo as well. That's when the case went from credible to WTF. From the decision [PDF]:
On August 29 2014, Hall filed the instant action against Lund, Jessop, and Dunk for intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, false light invasion of privacy, and invasion of privacy. In addition to those named or identified in the previous harassment action, Hall named as a defendant derHoaxster@gmail.com (derHoaxster), and alleged that derHoaxster had “published multiple statements disparaging Plaintiff as dishonest in his law practice and in his personal life.” Hall also named Yahoo as a defendant, based on allegations that Yahoo had published or republished threatening and defamatory statements made by Lund, Jessop, Dunk, and derHoaxster.
Yahoo, naturally, claimed it had done no such thing. It also pointed out postings by third parties were the third parties' problem, not Yahoo's. Hall, however, argued Yahoo could be proven to be responsible for the supposed republished content. The court humored him. Hall did not fail to disappoint.
On July 17, 2015, Hall filed a first amended complaint (FAC) that included the same causes of action alleged in his initial complaint as well as a new fifth cause of action against Yahoo for intentional interference with contract. In the new cause of action, Hall alleged that Yahoo had flooded his America Online (AOL) email account with more than 2000 emails denigrating AOL’s services. Hall’s FAC also alleged that Yahoo was not shielded by the CDA because Yahoo had failed to identify the users of the screen names who had posted defamatory statements about him, and that Yahoo itself was the “content provider” of those statements.
This was Hall's attempt to peel back Yahoo's Section 230 immunity. It's an interesting theory -- Yahoo's failure to identify strips it of immunity. It's also one without any legal basis. This amended complaint didn't do much for Hall. Yahoo responded with one of its own under California's anti-SLAPP law. In support of its motion, Yahoo submitted an affidavit stating it did not create any of the content in its forums, bulletin boards, chatrooms, etc.
Hall simply doubled down.
Hall opposed the demurrer and anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that Yahoo was not shielded from liability under the CDA because it had not provided, in response to Hall’s discovery requests, telephone numbers for the users of the screen names “pddunk@yahoo.com” and “derHoaxster@yahoo.com.”
The anti-SLAPP motion was granted and Hall appealed. The appeals court takes particular interest in Hall's bizarre Section 230 theories.
Hall’s argument that Yahoo was required to identify the persons who posted the objectionable content by providing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, or other identifying information for such persons is legally unsupported. The CDA contains no such requirement, and Hall cites no authority that construes the statute to impose such a requirement. Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790 (Delfino), a case on which Hall relies, undermines rather than supports his position. The court in Delfino concluded that because “there was no evidence that Agilent [the interactive computer service provider] played any role whatsoever in ‘the creation or development’ of” the objectionable content that was the subject of the action, it clearly satisfied the third element required for a finding of CDA immunity. (Id. at p. 807.) Here, there was undisputed evidence that Yahoo was not responsible, in whole or in part, for the content of the emails and posts that are the subject of Hall’s claims. The trial court accordingly did not err by granting the anti-SLAPP motion.
As the court points out earlier in the decision, Yahoo's declaration that it did not post or publish the allegedly defamatory content went uncontested by Hall. Instead, Hall picked his misunderstanding of Section 230 as the hill to die on. On top of having his lawsuit dismissed (both for failure to state a claim and under California's anti-SLAPP law), Hall will now be paying Yahoo's legal cost.
The decision here is another reminder of two things:
1. There is still no federal anti-SLAPP law, something that would greatly discourage baseless lawsuits like these from being brought in federal court. It would also discourage the same behavior in state courts, which is where this one was filed.
2. Section 230 provides important protections for service providers who are almost always the easiest party to find and serve, even if they've done nothing else but provide a platform for people to speak their minds.
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: cda 230, intermediary liability, personal information, section 230, thomas hall
Companies: yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The decision here is another reminder of a third thing
This means one should be very careful when they choose their lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The decision here is another reminder of a third thing
Self-proclaimed genius: "See how brilliant my twist is?"
Court: "No. Pay the man."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MyNameHere's not going to like this, is he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The comments in the comments section were not.
Do you not see the distinction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Firstly, publishing and hosting are two different things. But I think you know that and constantly choose to ignore that difference.
Secondly, something actually illegal, civilly or criminally must occur for any kind of liability. Saying something is illegal does not make it so. That is why there are laws and courts and standards of proof. But I think you know that too, see above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My question about Respondeat Superior is also a serious question - for example, your posts displays an Insider moniker, and your profile displays an Insider badge. Does that mean Techdirt takes on the liability for your posts? Or does that only apply if Techdirt actually pays you and controls your actions? What about people who pay Techdirt? For example, if it could be shown that Google paid Techdirt to promote a particular agenda (Shiva, for example), could Google be held liable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nein! If zee 'tip of Googles' ist gut fur Techdirt, zen Googles should pay zee Techdirt. Ranking hoch? Zat ist profitable only fur *Googles*! If Googie don't pay up zee geld zu alles, zey should only get zee shaft!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to know about the insider program, sign up, you will learn all about it, and then we will be able to distinguish you from others. Even Anonymous Coward is pseudo anonymity as writing style is a give-a-way. Pick a name not already used, and remain pseudonymous, but distinguishable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The stupidity is also in that Techdirt published something defamatory. That has yet to be proven. Once in a while the authors of the articles (they are, I think, paid to write those articles, but have no proof of that) do sometimes make an appearance in the comments, we know who they are, and their appearances in the comments are rare. The rest of us are not paid by the blog, but some of us do pay to support the blog.
And because you continue to assert your stupidity, without taking any notice of non nasty responses, tells us that you are in fact not worth responding to. So I am done with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a secret. Just obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who pays you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's an awfully odd hypothetical. Why would Google care about Shiva?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The GPL...
This is very tangential, but I'm curious as to what you think of the legality of the enforcement of the GPL. (That is, I'm not asking about your opinion of the motivations/goals of those who use or support the GPL)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The GPL...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The GPL...
Well then, to be specific, you don't consider the use of the GPL to be copyright misuse, illegal price fixing, or in violation of any antitrust laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The GPL...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feck off, Shiva
That's not a serious question. You already know the answer. Even if you didn't (which you do), you could Google it.
More tripe. Each story's author is listed right at the top of the page. But again, you already knew that.
Shiva's low, all right. Low down lying scum. BTW, I'm in Canada - come and sue me too.
Right, because Shiva didn't change anything. His software died shortly after birth. Writing a mail program in ForTran wasn't very bright, but then he didn't know all that much, did he? Shiva's program never left its little pond. Meanwhile, out in the real world, the real talent did change the world.
Ah, but he didn't say it then. Instead, he's saying it now. And he's rewritten history by changing his claims and backdating events. And why did he do this? Because he's a liar and a fraud and a con artist.
Of course, it's easy to not see what you don't want to see, eh?
In closing, feck off, Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feck off, Shiva
He loves this particular quote, I know that for a fact. Since he took the time to point it out in this case, I think it means he has no interest in trying to decide the matter, and that it belongs with the jury. So, the case is going ahead.
That's what I heard, anyway. I'm only telling you because you're special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feck off, Shiva
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can prove it only by ignoring the facts surrounding the development of email—none of which he has ever disproven—or by changing the definitions of words and phrases such that the claim becomes true.
Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email as we know it today. His program was born, lived in, and died in isolation. He did not influence any of the work done by ARPANET that happened before his program existed, nor did he influence any of the work done on the major email protocols that happened after he finished writing his program. He cannot claim to be the sole inventor of email without either misrepresenting or outright lying about his claim.
Destroying Techdirt will not change those facts. Neither will hiring a troll whose sole intent in posting here is to deflect and distract from the truth. The only way to change those facts is to prove that they are, in fact, incorrect. Shiva’s lawsuit hinges, in part, on whether he can do just that. Since he has never been able to do so before, I have no doubt that he will fail to do so if this lawsuit goes all the way to a verdict.
Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email. He misrepresents his accomplishments at best and lies about them at worst. His attempt to destroy Techdirt represents an attempt to financially bankrupt someone for telling a truth that he does not like. And if Shiva does not like me telling these truths…well, he can fuckin’ sue me, for all the good that will do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh he certainly misrepresents. He wrote software called EMAIL and submitted it for copyright protection. He didn't invent email by any stretch of the imagination, he just has a piece of paper from the US Government saying it recognizes that he wrote something called EMAIL; which he misrepresents as "proof" that he invented email.
What an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But...Yahoo did not pay them to make those comments or any others, so Yahoo is not liable.
I'm not sure what you mean by paying Techdirt though. Are you referring to how some people (such as myself) have donated money to them? I'm not liable for their posts either, since I donated money to support a legal battle against a skeevy litigant, I am not their employer.
It's not rocket science, AC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad law. Thanks Wyden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the plaintiff's lawyer is right here, but that the overbroad and one sided nature of section 230 creates a legal moat that protects everything inside of it. There is no simple provision to get around it or deal with it short of a full on court order, which is hard to get when dealing with does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, judges tend to give plaintiffs a very hard time when they are chasing "does" through a third party. From what I have seen and read here and on other places (such as Popehat) it seems that the judges tend to want more than "that nasty anonymous person said something bad'.
How is that a problem? That strikes me as 'working as intended'. If someone is asking for a legally binding order to force someone to hand over personal details stripping the anonymity from someone the bar should most certainly be higher than 'someone said something bad'.
Demonstrate that the statement(s) rises to actual defamation, that an actual law has likely been broken and I imagine a judge would have no problem issuing an order requiring that information be handed over so they can go after the person directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Having to realize that the plaintiff's lawyer is right must give your brain such a disconnect you just can't resist putting a contrarian "but" at the end of conceding your agreement. Because being contrarian is intellectually stimulating!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]