Directory Assistants, Inc. v. Supermedia, LLC
884 F. Supp. 2d 446
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Plaintiff Directory Assistants, Inc. sues Defendants for tortious interference with business expectancy and defamation and seeks a permanent injunction.
- Defendants are Supermedia, LLC, and employees Caro, Sapaugh, and Duffy, all allegedly involved in advertising and compensated on advertising fees.
- Plaintiff alleges false and defamatory postings on RipOffReport.com, ScamInformer.com, InsiderPages.com, JudysBooks.com, and YellowPages.com, and that Defendants forwarded links to these posts via a company email.
- Plaintiff filed two federal lawsuits in Connecticut to remove certain postings; the challenged postings include four on RipOffReport and one on ScamInformer.
- An email on May 10, 2011 purportedly linked to the Rip Off Report Posts and Scam Informer Post was compiled by Caro and sent to Sapaugh, who allegedly forwarded it to others and Duffy forwarded it to a prospective customer.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiff opposed, and the motion is fully briefed and ripe for review; the court grants the motion in its entirety and dismisses with prejudice under the CDA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CDA § 230 bar the claims? | CDA immunity shields service providers and users from liability for third-party content. | CDA applies, providing immunity to both providers and users from state-law claims. | Yes; CDA immunity bars the claims. |
| Are RipOffReport and ScamInformer interactive computer services under the CDA? | Whether these sites fit the CDA’s interactive service definition requires discovery. | These sites enable user-generated content and thus are interactive computer services. | Yes; they are interactive computer services under the CDA. |
| Are Defendants 'users' under the CDA provisions? | Defendants' conduct constitutes use of the sites to compile and send links. | Defendants used the sites by accessing and forwarding content. | Yes; Defendants are users immune from liability. |
| Does CDA immunity extend to defamation and tortious interference claims against users? | If CDA immunity does not apply to users, claims may proceed. | CDA immunity applies broadly to users and providers, barring liability. | Yes; immunity precludes liability for both defamation and tortious interference against the users. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (CDA immunity for information originated with third parties; providers shielded)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (interactive service providers immune; users may also be immune)
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (broad CDA immunity for interactive service users under certain contexts)
- Craigslist, Inc. v. Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) (provider/user immunities under CDA discussed)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (CDA scope and publisher-liability framework for online content)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (defines use and publication roles in internet contexts)