Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC
755 F.3d 398
6th Cir.2014Background
- Jones sued Dirty World and Richie for defamation, false light, and IIED over anonymous posts on TheDirty.com.
- The site crowdsources user content; Richie edits and publishes user submissions with his own editorial comments.
- The district court denied CDA immunity; the case proceeded to trials resulting in Jones’s verdicts (later appealed).
- The issues centered on whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) bars state-law claims and how § 230(f)(3) applies to ‘development.’
- The court adopted a ‘material contribution’ test to determine when a publisher is also an information content provider.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated and held that § 230(c)(1) bars the claims because Dirty World and Richie did not materially contribute to the defamatory content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 230(c)(1) immunize | Jones argues defendants are publishers of third-party content. | Dirty World and Richie contend they are immune as service providers for third-party content. | Yes; CDA bars the claims. |
| How is 'development' defined in § 230(f)(3) | Jones asserts development includes editorial selection and ratification. | Dirty World/Richie argue development is narrower, not including passive publication. | Adopt a material contribution standard; not all editing constitutes development. |
| Is the website an information content provider for the relevant statements | Jones claims defendants are information content providers for the posts. | Defendants were not creators of the defamatory content and thus not IC Providers for those posts. | No; they were not information content providers for the challenged content. |
| Does the adoption/ratification theory negate immunity | Jones relied on Richie's later comments as ratifying the posts. | Adoption/ratification is not equal to development and should not defeat immunity. | Rejected; adoption/ratification cannot remove immunity under § 230. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (immunity for publisher liability; early CDA precedent)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. Wakefield, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (material contribution test for 'development' under § 230(f)(3))
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2010) (immunity based on non-development; site not responsible for third-party content)
- Accusearch, Inc. v. Editors at Large, 570 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009) (development when site pays for illicit conduct; not immune)
- Doe v. SexSearch.com, 551 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2008) (cautions against broad, sweeping expansion of CDA immunity)
- Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) (immunity where site hosts third-party content without encouraging illegality)