Bennett v. Google, Inc.
Civil Action No. 2016-2283
| D.D.C. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Dawn J. Bennett and DJ Bennett Holdings, LLC sued Google for defamation, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from a third‑party blog post written by Scott Pierson.
- Plaintiffs alleged Google was aware of complaints about the blog and therefore responsible for damages.
- Google moved to dismiss under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230(c)(1) immunity and alternatively on statute of limitations grounds.
- The complaint conceded Google is an interactive computer service and that the blog was authored by a third party.
- Plaintiffs argued that Google’s adoption of content standards but alleged failure to enforce them could defeat § 230 immunity.
- The Court granted Google’s motion to dismiss based on § 230 and did not reach the statute of limitations argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Google qualifies as an "interactive computer service" under § 230 | Bennett did not dispute qualification | Google is an interactive computer service entitled to § 230 immunity | Google qualifies as an interactive computer service; prong satisfied |
| Whether the harmful content was "provided by another information content provider" | Pierson’s blog was third‑party but Plaintiffs argued enforcement failure mattered | The blog was created by Pierson, a third party, not Google | Content was provided by a third party; prong satisfied |
| Whether the complaint seeks to treat Google as the publisher/speaker of third‑party content | Bennett alleges Google is liable because it knew of complaints and failed to act | Google argued Plaintiffs seek to treat it as publisher/speaker, barred by § 230 | Court held Plaintiffs sought to treat Google as publisher; prong satisfied |
| Whether Google's alleged adoption but non‑enforcement of content standards removes § 230 immunity | Bennett argued that adopting standards and not enforcing them creates an obligation and defeats immunity | Google argued § 230 bars imposing liability for failure to enforce content rules and such a rule would chill moderation | Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument; § 230 immunity applies despite alleged non‑enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (applies § 230 three‑prong test and affirms immunity where claims treat service as publisher)
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (explains policy rationale that service providers cannot screen millions of postings and that imposing liability would chill interactive services)
- Bluementhal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) (discusses Congress’s intent to immunize interactive services and the disincentive to moderate content)
- Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (recognizes Google as an interactive computer service under § 230)
- Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 2d 628 (E.D. Va. 2010) (holds Google is an interactive computer service and is entitled to § 230 protection)