General Steel Domestic Sales, L.L.C. v. Chumley
840 F.3d 1178
10th Cir.2016Background
- General Steel sued Armstrong Steel and its CEO Ethan Chumley over negative online ads and an "Industry Related Legal Matters" webpage that republished and selectively quoted documents about lawsuits involving General Steel.
- General Steel pleaded Lanham Act unfair competition/false advertising, libel, tortious interference with prospective business, and civil conspiracy based on 20 specific posts/ads.
- Armstrong moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), arguing it cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
- The district court granted Section 230 immunity for three posts that merely linked to third-party content but denied immunity for 17 posts and the search ads, finding Armstrong created/developed those materials by selectively quoting and composing the content; the court also held Section 230 does not bar Lanham Act claims.
- Armstrong appealed the denial of immunity, arguing Section 230 bars not only liability but suit itself and seeking interlocutory appellate review under the collateral order doctrine; the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 230 provides immunity from suit (permitting interlocutory appeal) | Section 230 does not bar suit; the action should proceed | Section 230 bars suit as well as liability; denial is effectively unreviewable and thus appealable under the collateral order doctrine | Section 230 provides immunity from liability, not suit; no explicit statutory grant of immunity from suit, so collateral-order jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether §230(e)(3) phrase "No cause of action may be brought" bars suits | Not specifically argued by plaintiff; district court treated CDA as not barring Lanham Act claims | §230(e)(3) shows Congress intended to bar causes of action inconsistent with CDA, thus barring suit | §230(e)(3) is a preemption clause; it does not explicitly create immunity from suit and does not support interlocutory appeal |
| Whether selective quoting/summarizing converts third‑party material into developer-created content (affecting §230 immunity) | General Steel: Armstrong’s edits and selective presentation created/developed content, removing §230 protection | Armstrong: content was derived from court records and links, so §230 should apply | Court below found selective quoting/summarizing amounted to content development for 17 posts (Armstrong did not challenge this determination on interlocutory appeal) |
| Whether Section 230 bars Lanham Act false-advertising claims generally | Lanham Act claims are not precluded by §230 | §230 preempts inconsistent state or local laws and should limit Lanham Act claims based on third-party content | Tenth Circuit found it unnecessary to resolve §230’s applicability to the Lanham Act because appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139 (jurisdictional requirements for collateral-order appeals)
- Dig. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (narrow application of collateral order doctrine)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (immunity from suit rationale: suit effectively lost if allowed to proceed)
- Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (orders denying liability reviewable on appeal from final judgment)
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (purpose of §230 to protect interactive computer services from tort liability)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (private-party immunity principles and caution in extending immunity from suit)
- Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (statutory immunity from suit requires explicit language)