## 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

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.


Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (Cal. 2006)