Internet Brands, Inc. v. Jape
760 S.E.2d 1
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Internet Brands operates a boating forum where registered users post under user names; the site has an administrator and volunteer "spam deleters" (no paid employees or moderators).
- Norton Alderson was a spam deleter who posted allegations about plaintiff Dan Jape based on court records and other sites; Alderson was not an employee or paid contractor.
- Jape attempted to block Alderson’s posts but received a software message indicating Alderson was a "moderator/admin," meaning the ignore function couldn’t block him. Internet Brands explained the message was a technical limitation of the software.
- Jape sued Internet Brands and Alderson for defamation; Internet Brands moved for summary judgment on the basis of Section 230 immunity (and alternatively on defamation merits). The trial court denied summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) immunized Internet Brands and whether the trial court erred in denying sanctions against Internet Brands for alleged mediation abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA §230 bars Jape’s defamation claim | Internet Brands is not entitled to §230 immunity because Alderson was held out as a moderator/admin and thus acted as Internet Brands’ agent or content developer | Internet Brands is an interactive computer service and the allegedly defamatory content was created by a third party (Alderson), so §230(c)(1) immunizes Internet Brands | Held: §230 applies; Internet Brands entitled to immunity because it neither created/developed nor transformed Alderson’s content |
| Whether Alderson’s status as a “moderator/admin” made Internet Brands a content provider | The moderator/admin designation and inability to ignore Alderson show endorsement/agency, converting site into a developer of content | The software message was a technical artifact; there is no evidence Alderson was an employee, agent, or acting within any agency scope when posting | Held: No agency or content-provider status shown; designation did not create genuine issue of material fact on development/agency |
| Whether Internet Brands’ actions (e.g., allowing posts, rejecting blocks) equated to development of content | Selective presentation or technical choices amounted to development/endorsement of content | Allowing or removing posts, or altering display order, does not rise to creating/developing third‑party content under §230 | Held: Such actions do not defeat §230 immunity absent substantive content development or transformation |
| Whether trial court should sanction Internet Brands for mediation abuse | Jape argued the corporate rep lacked settlement authority and consultation violated ADR Rule 4.1 | Internet Brands argued the rep had settlement authority; consultation was permissible and settlement did not depend on another entity | Held: No abuse of discretion in denying sanctions; ADR rule inapplicable because decision did not depend on an outside entity |
Key Cases Cited
- Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir.) (§230 precludes provider liability for third‑party content)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing passive hosting from content development)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (editing/selection short of development does not defeat §230)
- Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal.) (transformative alteration/grouping of content can constitute development)
- Dimeo v. Max, 433 F. Supp. 2d 523 (E.D. Pa.) (three‑element test for §230(c)(1) immunity)
- Ascentive, LLC v. Opinion Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 450 (E.D.N.Y.) (layout/display choices not development)
- Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C.) (no agency/employee relationship established for §230 purposes)