## Facts

- An ex-boyfriend posted false online profiles portraying Cecilia Barnes, including nude or sexually explicit photographs and identifying information, on a Yahoo-operated service.
- Barnes alleged the profiles caused harassment, including unwanted contacts and men appearing at her workplace.
- Barnes repeatedly requested that Yahoo remove the profiles.
- A Yahoo representative allegedly promised that Yahoo would “take care of it,” but the profiles remained accessible for months.
- Barnes sued asserting (1) negligent undertaking/negligent provision of services based on Yahoo’s failure to remove the content and (2) promissory estoppel based on Yahoo’s alleged promise to remove it.

## Issues

1. Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service from a negligence claim predicated on failing to remove harmful third-party content after allegedly undertaking to do so.
2. Whether § 230(c)(1) bars a promissory estoppel claim based on the service’s own promise to remove third-party content.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the negligence claim.
- The court held § 230(c)(1) barred the negligence theory because it sought to impose liability for Yahoo’s failure to remove third-party content, which treats Yahoo as a publisher.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim and remanded.
- The court held § 230(c)(1) did not necessarily bar promissory estoppel because liability would arise from Yahoo’s own promise, not from publishing third-party information.

## Legal Principles

- CDA § 230(c)(1) bars claims when (1) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service, (2) the claim treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker, and (3) the challenged information is provided by another information content provider.
- “Publisher” conduct includes decisions whether to withdraw, postpone, or remove third-party content; liability based on failure to remove content is publisher-based and generally preempted by § 230(c)(1).
- Plaintiffs cannot avoid § 230(c)(1) by re-labeling publisher-based liability as negligence or other tort theories if the duty alleged depends on publication or removal of third-party content.
- Contract-like liability (including promissory estoppel) may proceed when the duty alleged arises from the platform’s own voluntary promise, because the source of the obligation is the promisor’s commitment rather than third-party content.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that § 230(c)(1) forecloses negligence claims seeking to hold a platform liable for failing to remove harmful third-party postings, but it does not preclude a promissory estoppel claim premised on the platform’s own promise to remove the material, which may be litigated on remand.


Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)