## Facts

- A civil rights organization sued an online classifieds service operator under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), alleging the site carried housing advertisements expressing unlawful preferences or limitations based on protected characteristics.
- The challenged statements were contained in housing ads created and posted by third-party users and included explicit discriminatory language (e.g., exclusions based on race, familial status, or religion/sex).
- The website functioned as an online forum for user-generated listings and did not pre-screen postings; it relied largely on user reporting to identify problematic content.
- The plaintiff sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, asserting the website “published” or “caused” discriminatory housing notices to be published in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c).
- The defendant asserted immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230, arguing it was an “interactive computer service” and the content at issue was provided by “another information content provider.”
- The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

## Issues

1. Whether an operator of an online classifieds forum may be held liable under FHA § 3604(c) for discriminatory housing ads created and posted by third-party users.
2. Whether CDA § 230 immunizes the operator from an FHA claim that would treat it as the publisher or speaker of user-provided content.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion and entered judgment for the defendant.
- The court treated the motion under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, accepting well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s favor.
- The court held the defendant was an “interactive computer service” within the meaning of CDA § 230.
- The court held the discriminatory ads were provided by third-party users who qualified as “information content providers.”
- The court concluded the FHA theory sought to impose publisher-type liability on the defendant for third-party content, which CDA § 230(c)(1) prohibits.
- The court rejected the argument that providing the forum “caused” the discriminatory statements to be made or published in a way that avoided § 230.

## Legal Principles

- CDA § 230(c)(1) bars claims that would treat a provider of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.
- A website that hosts user-generated postings, without creating or developing the unlawful content, is generally not an “information content provider” of that content for § 230 purposes.
- Statutory claims framed as liability for “publishing” third-party content are barred when they depend on the intermediary’s role as a publisher of user speech.
- FHA § 3604(c)’s prohibition on making, printing, publishing, or causing discriminatory housing advertisements does not override § 230 where the defendant’s conduct is limited to providing a platform for third-party ads.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the FHA discriminatory-advertising claim because it would impose publisher liability on an online forum for third-party housing ads, and CDA § 230 shields interactive computer service providers from being treated as the publisher or speaker of user-supplied content.


Chi. Laws.' Comm. for Civ. Rts. Under L. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. Ill. 2006)