## Facts

- Sarah Jones, a Kentucky high school teacher and Cincinnati Bengals Ben–Gals cheerleader, became the subject of anonymous posts on TheDirty.com, a user-submission gossip website.
- Users submitted posts and photos accusing Jones of promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease; the statements were allegedly false and defamatory.
- The site’s operator/editor, Hooman Karamian (a/k/a “Nik Richie”), selected user submissions for publication, removed certain categories of content (e.g., nudity, threats), and added brief editorial remarks that did not add defamatory facts.
- Jones repeatedly requested removal of the posts; the site refused to take them down.
- Jones sued asserting state-law claims including defamation, libel per se, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) barred Jones’s state-law claims by treating the website and its operator as a “publisher or speaker” of information provided by third-party users.
2. Whether the operator’s selection of posts, refusal to remove them, and added commentary made the defendants “information content providers” by developing the unlawful aspects of the content.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment for Jones and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that § 230(c)(1) immunized the website and its operator from liability for the third-party posts.
- The court adopted a “material contribution” standard: immunity is lost only if the operator materially contributes to what makes the content unlawful.
- The operator’s editorial acts (selecting posts, minor editing, adding non-defamatory comments, and refusing removal requests) did not materially contribute to the alleged defamation.

## Legal Principles

- Section 230(c)(1) prevents treating a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.
- A defendant generally receives § 230 immunity when: (1) it is a provider/user of an interactive computer service; (2) the claim treats it as a publisher or speaker; and (3) the information was provided by another information content provider.
- A website becomes an “information content provider” for challenged content only if it is responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the content’s unlawful aspect.
- “Development” requires material contribution to the illegality; encouragement of submissions, curation, and adding non-defamatory commentary are protected publisher functions under § 230.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the Communications Decency Act barred state-law tort liability for defamatory user posts on TheDirty.com because the operator did not materially contribute to the defamatory content, and standard editorial and publication decisions remained immunized.


Jones v. Dirty World Ent. Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014)