913 N.W.2d 211
Wis. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mass-casualty shooting: shooter Radcliffe Haughton bought a handgun and ammunition after responding to an Armslist.com "for sale" post; he was subject to a domestic violence injunction that prohibited firearm possession.
- Plaintiff Yasmeen Daniel (administrator of victim's estate) sued Armslist, LLC and related individual defendants, alleging the website’s design and operational features facilitated illegal private gun sales and thus were a cause of the shooting.
- Complaint alleges Armslist enabled anonymous private sales, allowed filtering to exclude licensed dealers, did not require registration, prevented flagging posts as illegal, and generally encouraged transactions that avoid background checks and waiting periods.
- Circuit court dismissed the complaint in full on the ground that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Communications Decency Act) immunized Armslist as an interactive computer service provider.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether § 230 preempts Daniel’s state-law tort claims and (2) whether dismissal of the negligence per se claim was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 230(c)(1) bars state-law tort claims based on Armslist's website design/operation | Daniel: claims target Armslist’s own conduct in designing/operating the site to facilitate illegal sales, not Armslist as publisher of third‑party content | Armslist: § 230 grants broad immunity for interactive services; design/operation are publishing/editorial functions protected by the Act | Reversed dismissal: § 230 protects only liability that treats a provider as the publisher/speaker of another’s information; Daniel’s theory alleges Armslist’s own conduct in enabling illegal activity and is not barred |
| Whether negligence per se claim was properly dismissed | Daniel: criminal statute violations can establish negligence per se under Wisconsin law; circuit court misapplied precedent | Armslist: defended dismissal based on older case law cited by circuit court | Reversed: Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent establishes violation of a criminal statute generally constitutes negligence per se; circuit court erred in dismissing this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (statute should be read by its text; immunity applies where defendant is treated as publisher/speaker of third‑party content)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (limits § 230 immunity to the statute’s narrow language; no broad get‑out‑of‑liability card for businesses hosting user content)
- J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, L.L.C., 359 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2015) (allegations that website developed content/rules facilitating illegal activity can survive § 230 defense)
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (early § 230 decision discussing publisher/editorial function immunity)
- Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna (Jane Doe No. 1), 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016) (interpreting § 230 to preempt certain trafficking‑related claims based on website’s role as forum for third‑party ads)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. Fair Housing Council, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes between site operator as content developer versus passive host)