Franco Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.
700 F. App'x 588
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Caraccioli sued Facebook in diversity court after a third party posted private images/videos of him on Facebook and Facebook declined to remove them.
- He brought state-law claims including defamation/libel, false light, public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision/retention, breach of contract, and UCL claims.
- District court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Caraccioli sought leave to amend which the district court denied as futile.
- The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered whether Facebook’s conduct made it an "information content provider" under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
- The court found Facebook immune under the Communications Decency Act for claims treating Facebook as a publisher of third-party content and held Caraccioli’s contract-based claims were barred by Facebook’s terms of service.
- The panel affirmed the dismissal and refused to consider arguments raised only for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook can be liable under state law for third-party content (CDA § 230(c)(1)) | Facebook became an "information content provider" by reviewing the account and refusing removal | § 230(c)(1) immunizes interactive computer services from publisher liability for third-party content, including deciding not to remove posts | Claims treating Facebook as a publisher are barred by § 230(c)(1) |
| Whether Facebook’s review/decision not to remove content removes CDA immunity | Review/declining removal is sufficient to strip immunity | Reviewing or deciding not to prevent posting is conduct protected by the CDA | Review/decision not to remove does not make Facebook the content provider; immunity remains |
| Whether Facebook breached contract or UCL via alleged contract breach | Facebook’s terms promised removal/responsibility for content | Terms of service disclaim responsibility for third-party content, barring contract- and contract-based UCL claims | Contract and related UCL claims are barred by the terms of service |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted | Caraccioli sought leave to amend to cure defects | Amendment would be futile given § 230 immunity and contractual disclaimers | Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (§ 230(c)(1) shields interactive services from publisher liability for third-party content)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing when a site becomes an information content provider)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (§ 230 grants broad immunity for publishing defamatory third-party content)
- Mayne Block v. eBay, Inc., 747 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.) (contract language governs parties’ intent when contract is written)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (U.S.) (standards for unconscionability under California law)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (court will not consider arguments not raised in opening brief)