## Facts

- A former client of a law firm posted negative one-star reviews about the firm on an online review platform, accusing the firm of neglect, poor communication, and abandoning the client’s case.
- The law firm demanded removal; the reviewer refused.
- The law firm sued the reviewer for defamation and related torts in California superior court but did not sue the platform, anticipating the platform would invoke immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230.
- The reviewer did not appear, and the trial court entered a default judgment awarding damages and issuing injunctive relief.
- The injunction ordered the reviewer to remove specified reviews and stop posting further reviews about the firm, and also directed the nonparty platform to remove the identified reviews.
- After being served with the default judgment and removal directive, the platform specially appeared and moved to set aside or modify the judgment to the extent it purported to bind the platform.

## Issues

1. Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230 bars enforcing an injunction compelling a nonparty interactive computer service to remove user-generated reviews after a default judgment against the user.
2. Whether ordering a nonparty platform to remove content without being sued or permitted to litigate the defamation merits violates due process.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and vacated the portion of the injunction requiring the platform to remove the reviews.
- The court held that § 230 barred enforcement of the removal order against the platform because it treated the platform as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
- The court left intact the default judgment and injunction as against the reviewer, including orders directed to the reviewer to remove the posts and refrain from further postings about the firm.

## Legal Principles

- An online platform that hosts third-party reviews is an “interactive computer service” under § 230 when the challenged content is provided by another “information content provider.”
- Compelling a platform to remove third-party content imposes an obligation to exercise editorial control, which is a publisher function; § 230(c)(1) prohibits treating the platform as the publisher or speaker on that basis.
- A plaintiff may not obtain indirectly—via default judgment against the speaker and enforcement of an injunction against a nonparty platform—relief that § 230 would bar if sought directly against the platform.
- A nonparty subject to an order that affects its operations and exposes it to potential consequences is sufficiently aggrieved to seek appellate review, though the disposition may rest on statutory immunity rather than an independent due process holding.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 230 precludes enforcing a removal injunction against a nonparty review platform because such an order compels publisher-like editorial action over user content, while permitting injunctive and monetary relief to remain effective against the individual who posted the allegedly defamatory reviews.


Hassell v. Bird, 420 P.3d 776 (Cal. 2018)