GoDaddy.com, LLC v. Hollie Toups
429 S.W.3d 752
Tex. App.2014Background
- Putative class of women allege revenge porn websites hosted by defendants not party to appeal
- GoDaddy hosted the sites as an interactive computer service provider, not the content creator
- Plaintiffs claim GoDaddy knew of the content, failed to remove it, and profited from it
- Plaintiffs allege Texas Penal Code violations and related intentional torts including invasion of privacy and emotional distress
- Trial court denied GoDaddy’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss as immune under §230 CDA
- Court reverses, certifying immunity and remanding for judgment in GoDaddy’s favor
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §230 immunity bar GoDaddy from being treated as publisher | GoDaddy not publisher; content created by others; immunity should not apply | GoDaddy provided hosting; knowledge and inaction do not remove publisher status | Yes; GoDaddy immune as publisher under §230 |
| Can plaintiffs state a state tort claim despite §230 immunity based on content illegality | CDA does not preempt state torts when content is illegal or unprotected | Immunity applies regardless of content legality; claims barred | Yes; immunity survives even for obscene/illegal content |
| Whether plaintiffs may replead against GoDaddy after immunity determined | Repleading could cure deficiencies | Amendment would be futile given immunity | Denied; repleading not allowed; futile and impermissible |
| Whether Milo-like language governs preemption of intentional torts by CDA | CDA does not preempt all intentional torts | CDA preempts claims treating ISP as publisher | CDA preemption narrower; GoDaddy immune for publisher-type claims |
| Whether claims against GoDaddy can survive by recasting as non-publisher liability | Alternative theories avoid CDA immunity | Courts treat publication-related failure to remove as publishing activity | No; recasting fails; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Milo v. Martin, 311 S.W.3d 210 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (CDA generally controls republication of third-party content; not preclude immunity for publisher)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. Fair Housing, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (Roommates held publisher/non-publisher immunity split by content section)
- Cisneros v. Sanchez, 403 F. Supp. 2d 588 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (CDA preemption analysis; content creators v. publishers; helps limit state claims)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (Removal of indecent profiles deemed publishing; immunity for publisher-acts)
- Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (Republication and publishing concepts central to §230 immunity)