Facts
- Tim Bolen posted an online article criticizing physicians Stephen J. Barrett and Terry Polevoy, including allegations about Polevoy’s conduct toward a radio reporter and a proposed program on alternative medicine.
- Ilena Rosenthal operated an internet-based support group and reposted Bolen’s article to two alternative-medicine newsgroups.
- After Barrett notified Rosenthal the material was libelous and threatened suit, Rosenthal reposted the article again along with the threat.
- Barrett, Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell sued Rosenthal for defamation and conspiracy to libel based on her republication of Bolen’s statements.
Issues
- Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) bars state-law defamation claims against a person who republishes third-party online content, including claims based on common-law “distributor” liability after notice of alleged defamation.
- Whether an individual who posts or reposts content on internet newsgroups qualifies as a “user of an interactive computer service” protected by § 230(c)(1).
- Whether § 230 immunity depends on whether the defendant’s republication was “active” (intentional selection and reposting) rather than “passive.”
Decision
- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated the trial court’s order granting Rosenthal’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike.
- The Court held § 230(c)(1) immunizes both providers and individual users from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another content provider.
- The Court held § 230 precludes notice-based “distributor” liability for internet republication of third-party content.
- The Court rejected an “active versus passive” distinction where the defendant did not create or develop the challenged content.
Legal Principles
- Under § 230(c)(1), a provider or user of an interactive computer service may not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information created by another information content provider.
- § 230 immunity applies broadly to state-law defamation claims premised on republication of third-party content, including claims framed as distributor liability based on notice.
- Individual internet participants who repost material using an interactive computer service qualify as “users” entitled to § 230(c)(1) protection.
- Immunity does not extend to a defendant who is an “information content provider,” meaning a person responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the challenged information.
- Policy concerns about immunizing defamatory republication are for Congress; absent statutory change, defamation plaintiffs must generally seek relief from the original speaker rather than a republisher who did not develop the content.
Conclusion
The court held that CDA § 230 bars defamation and related state-law claims against an individual who reposts third-party online content, including claims based on distributor liability after receiving notice, so long as the reposter did not create or develop the defamatory material.