Dawn Bennett v. Google LLC
882 F.3d 1163
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Dawn Bennett and her company DJ Bennett sued Google after a third-party (Scott Pierson) posted a negative blog about DJ Bennett on Google’s Blogger platform, alleging defamation, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Pierson had been contracted for SEO services by DJ Bennett; after a payment dispute he posted the blog accusing the company and Bennett of unethical conduct and unpaid debts.
- Bennett’s counsel asked Pierson to remove the post and separately asked Google to take it down under Google’s Blogger Content Policy; Pierson and Google refused to remove it.
- Google’s Blogger Content Policy allows users to flag violations and permits Google to remove content that violates its rules, but otherwise leaves user posts online; Google did not edit Pierson’s post.
- The district court dismissed Bennett’s claims on the ground that 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized Google for third-party content; the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Google is an "interactive computer service" under § 230 | Bennett conceded Google is an interactive service but argued Google’s policies made it more than a mere distributor | Google is an interactive computer service and thus falls within § 230 protection | Held: Google is an interactive computer service and qualifies for § 230 immunity |
| Whether the blog content was "information provided by another information content provider" | Pierson (third party) authored the blog; Bennett argued Google’s policies influenced content | Google did not create or develop the blog content; Pierson authored it | Held: The blog was created by Pierson (a third-party content provider) |
| Whether Google’s content-moderation policies converted it into an "information content provider" | Bennett argued Google’s Blogger Content Policy and enforcement made it responsible for creating/developing content | Google’s role was limited to choosing to publish or remove content (output control), not creating the content | Held: Policies and moderation are publishing decisions; they do not transform Google into a content developer — § 230 immunity applies |
| Whether Bennett’s state-law claims can proceed against Google despite § 230 | Bennett sought to hold Google liable as the publisher/speaker of third-party speech | Google argued § 230 preempts state-law claims that treat it as the publisher or penalize its moderation decisions | Held: § 230 bars Bennett’s claims against Google; her remedy is against Pierson, not Google |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (CDA immunity prevents liability for third-party postings to avoid chilling online speech)
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (three-part § 230 test: interactive service, third-party content, liability as publisher)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (website can be a content provider when it requires or substantially develops user-generated content)
- Green v. Am. Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) (§ 230 allows content-moderation standards without creating publisher liability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint-pleading standards; district-court factual allegations accepted for purposes of appeal)