If A Site Uses Third-Party Moderators Who Do Something Bad, Does The Site Lose Safe Harbors?

from the that-would-be-bad dept

Last year, we wrote about a rather straightforward case where a nutritional supplement company had sued the operators of the forum bodybuilding.com, because of some unflattering comments posted in the forum. The court quickly tossed out the case on Section 230 grounds, noting that a site is not liable for the actions of its commenters. However, Eric Goldman alerts us to the latest in that case, which is a bit more troubling. After having the case transferred to a different court, the supplement maker used a new argument, claiming that it was false advertising and that since a third-party "moderator" posted one of the messages, the site is now responsible. That's basically how the company tried to get around Section 230.

The court, unfortunately, seems to have agreed. While it does note that bodybuilding.com has Section 230 immunity despite having third party moderators, it allows for the possibility that since one of the moderators may have posted one of the messages in question, the moderator could be considered "a representative of the site." This goes against a whole series of case law, which Goldman lists in his post, and could create all sorts of problems for sites that use volunteer or third party moderators. Of course, this was just in response to the motion to dismiss, so the court could come back and say that third party moderators don't make a site liable, but it's worth paying attention to this case. As Goldman notes: "I really can't imagine Web 2.0 succeeding without a robust cadre of site admins and moderators helping self-police an online community."

Filed Under: false advertising, forums, moderators, safe harbors, section 230, third parties

Why So Many Telco/Cableco False Advertising Lawsuits?

from the false-advertising-all-around dept

It seems that the telcos and the cable companies just can't stop making questionable claims against each other. It's been going on for years, but it seems that the telcos are finally going to court over it. Last month, we mentioned that Verizon was suing Time Warner Cable over what it claimed was false advertising, but then had to embarrassingly admit that its own ads were misleading as well. Now, AT&T is suing Comcast for misleading advertising thanks to a print ad campaign that suggests AT&T DSL customers will have to put a huge cabinet on the side of their homes. As AT&T points out, it only needs to install such cabinets for one out of approximately 750 homes -- and it never installs them on private property without the permission of the homeowner. To be honest, it hardly seems like that big of a deal either. If it took a big box on the side of my house to get great internet speeds, I'd be fine with it.

But the thing that seems most strange, is this constant focus on attacking each other with exaggerated and misleading claims. That's a sign of a stagnating industry. A growing industry focuses on promoting what's new and what great features it has. Or, if it does mention the competition at all, it's to show why its service is better -- not why the other's is worse. The fact that the two sides are attacking each other in this manner, while broadband providers in other countries are spending their money on actual improvements is rather disappointing. If these broadband providers put half as much effort into just offering better service, perhaps it wouldn't have to resort to name calling and lawsuits against each other.

Filed Under: cable, false advertising, telcos
Companies: at&t, comcast

Comcast Sorta, But Not Really, Admits To Content Jamming

from the it's-all-in-the-weasel-language dept

Internet News is reporting that Comcast has put its "speed limit in writing." This is in response to the stories from last year about how Comcast was jamming certain kinds of traffic without being clear about it to users. However, the details suggest that the headline writer is being a bit generous. Comcast hasn't come close to putting the actual limits in writing. All it actually did was sneak some weasel language into its terms of service, saying that the company "uses reasonable network management practices that are consistent with industry standards." That's hardly being upfront about what's going on in a manner that will help subscribers actually understand why certain apps appear to not be working properly. Rather than better informing customers, this seems like a move designed to get the FCC to drop its investigation of the company's traffic shaping practices -- especially since the phrase used is copied straight from an FCC statement.

Filed Under: false advertising, terms of service, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast

Traffic Shaping In The UK: Who's Honest And Who's Not...

from the sound-familiar? dept

While we've mostly been focused on the debates over traffic shaping and false advertising in the US with the likes of Comcast and Verizon in the US, there's an interesting parallel over in the UK. Just like Verizon, it appears that Virgin Media's broadband offering is advertised as unlimited, even as the reality suggests quite differently. It's "unlimited within a fair-usage limit." That sounds like "limited" to me. In fact, the article notes, a Virgin Media user paying for unlimited service could find his bandwidth suddenly capped after just 20 minutes of straight downloading. That seems like quite a limit.

Much more interesting, however, is the story of Plusnet, an ISP that was recently bought by BT. It does traffic shaping, but unlike just about every other ISP, is incredibly honest and upfront about what it's doing. This is exactly what many people have been telling Comcast it should do. There are supporters of Comcast's efforts who insist that if Comcast did such a crazy thing as to actually tell its customers what it's doing, it would ruin the whole plan. However, the details from Plusnet show that's not the case at all. Plusnet makes it very clear what it's doing, explains to users what to expect, and even helps them understand when it makes more sense to use high bandwidth applications. According to the few supporters of Comcast out there, this would never work -- and yet, it clearly does work for Plusnet. Not only that, the article notes that Plusnet's customer satisfaction rating has been growing steadily. So, once again, we'll ask what could possibly be wrong with Comcast telling the truth about the fact that it's using traffic shaping to prevent certain actions?

Filed Under: false advertising, traffic shaping, uk
Companies: bt, plusnet, virgin media

Comcast Sued For Traffic Shaping

from the how-long-did-it-take-to-upload-the-suit? dept

Almost surprised it took this long, but following the widespread reports of Comcast jamming certain types of traffic, everyone pretty much expected someone to file a class action lawsuit. It just took a couple weeks (maybe the plaintiffs were jammed from uploading documents to their lawyers...). However, a lawsuit has now been filed in California, charging Comcast with violating federal computer fraud laws, their own user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes. The lawyers are (no surprise) hoping to turn this into a class action lawsuit. The computer fraud charges seem like a huge stretch, but misleading advertising could potentially stick. Comcast, for its part, maintains its ridiculous tightrope-walking corporate doubletalk on the issue, refusing to admit to anything: "Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services." Yes, that's nice and all... but it's not what people are accusing Comcast of doing. They're accusing Comcast of jamming certain types of traffic to make them not work as intended, and doing so without any indication or notice to the user. It still boggles the mind that Comcast won't come out and just say what it's doing. It's not as if it's a secret any more.

Filed Under: bittorrent, false advertising, fraud, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast