Baldino's Lock & Key Serv., Inc. v. Google LLC, 285 F. Supp. 3d 276

Background

Plaintiffs (Baldino's and other licensed locksmiths) allege Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft (Providers) suppress legitimate locksmiths by listing and enhancing scam locksmiths in search and map results, causing lost revenue and forcing paid advertising.
Scam locksmiths allegedly post false local location claims, use call centers, and operate without required licensing; Providers then display those listings and generate supplemental mapping content (addresses, map pinpoints, photos, directions).
Plaintiffs assert federal claims (Lanham Act, Sherman Act) and state-law claims (fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition, breach of contract, conspiracy), plus putative class claims; they seek injunctions and damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss, principally arguing they are immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because the contested information was provided by third-party scammers, not the Providers.
The court held that CDA immunity bars all claims except breach of contract; the breach claim was also dismissed for failure to plead specific contracts (dismissed without prejudice); other counts dismissed with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Providers are immune under CDA §230 for publishing scam listings and generated map data	Providers created original content (maps, pinpoints, photos) that they "developed," so §230 immunity does not apply	Providers are interactive computer services merely republishing third-party content and using neutral tools; §230 bars liability	CDA immunity applies: Providers are interactive services; disputed content originated with third parties; Plaintiffs seek to treat Providers as publisher/speaker—§230 bars claims
Whether mapping/enhancement equals "development" of third-party content (CDA exception)	Mapping information materially contributes to alleged unlawfulness and creates independent misrepresentations that remove immunity	Mapping is automated, derivative, neutral enhancement that does not materially contribute to scammers' unlawful acts	Mapping did not materially contribute to unlawfulness; automated/neutral enhancements remain protected under §230
Whether any statutory exceptions to §230 (e.g., criminal/antitrust) permit suit	Antitrust claims implicate federal law and should not be precluded	§230(e)(1) criminal exception limited to criminal prosecutions; civil antitrust claims remain barred by §230	CDA exceptions do not apply; civil antitrust and other claims remain barred by §230
Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded breach of contract	Plaintiffs allege an implied duty of good faith due to advertising contracts with Providers	Defendants say plaintiffs fail to identify specific contracts, terms, parties, or breaches to give notice	Breach claim inadequately pleaded: Plaintiffs did not identify specific contracts/terms; Count VI dismissed without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir.) (sets three-part test for §230 immunity)
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir.) (website design that merely facilitates third‑party content does not make site an information content provider)
Fair Hous. Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (content development exception—site that requires and helps create contested content can lose §230 immunity)
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (neutral tools used by third parties do not make site liable for user-created defamatory content)
Jones v. Dirty World Entm't Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (discussion of when site contribution to content removes §230 protection)
O'Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc., 831 F.3d 352 (6th Cir.) (search engines' automated editorial acts are protected by §230)
Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (§230 criminal exception applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil suits)