285 F. Supp. 3d 1097
C.D. Cal.2017Background
- Aimco owns multiunit apartment buildings and uses standard leases prohibiting subletting or short-term rentals (e.g., via Airbnb).
- Tenants listed Aimco units on Airbnb; Aimco alleges widespread unauthorized short-term sublets causing nuisance, property damage, increased security and remediation costs, tenant turnover, and reputational harm.
- Aimco contacted Airbnb to remove listings and provided lease language and addresses; Airbnb declined to evaluate leases or mediate disputes, stating it is an online platform and will notify users of Aimco's complaints.
- Aimco sued Airbnb in a putative class action asserting state-law claims (tortious interference, nuisance, etc.) based on Airbnb’s role in facilitating and profiting from unlawful subleases; Airbnb moved to dismiss under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 and for failure to state a claim.
- The court concluded the FAC treats Airbnb as the publisher of user-generated listings and that Airbnb is not an "information content provider" for purposes of § 230 immunity, and therefore ruled that § 230 preempts Aimco’s state-law claims and granted dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal on CDA § 230 grounds is premature | Aimco: factual record is scant; merits should not be decided on Rule 12(b)(6) | Airbnb: CDA questions are appropriate at pleading stage; Ninth Circuit precedent allows dismissal | Court: Not premature; dismissal on CDA ground is appropriate at this stage |
| Whether Airbnb is an "information content provider" under § 230(f)(3) | Aimco: Airbnb materially contributed to illegality via listing tools, payments, ancillary services, Friendly Buildings Program | Airbnb: The challenged content (lease-violating listings) was created by hosts; Airbnb provided neutral tools and services only | Court: Airbnb is not an information content provider; alleged features are neutral tools and do not materially contribute to illegality |
| Whether Aimco's claims seek to treat Airbnb as the publisher/speaker of third-party content (i.e., whether § 230(c)(1) immunity applies) | Aimco: Claims target Airbnb’s own misconduct (contracting with tenants, payment processing), not mere publishing | Airbnb: FAC treats Airbnb as publisher of host listings and alleges liability based on that publication | Court: Claims inherently require treating Airbnb as publisher/speaker of user content; § 230(c)(1) preempts Aimco's claims |
| Motion to strike class definition and related preliminary motions | Aimco: class action and injunction motions pending | Airbnb: alternative motion to strike class; challenged pleadings | Court: Motion to strike and plaintiff’s injunctive/discovery motions denied as moot given dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (establishes § 230 test for interactive service treated as publisher of third-party content)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (defines "information content provider" exception where a site materially contributes to unlawful content)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (interactive services receive immunity when third parties supply critical content)
- Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) (district courts may grant CDA-based dismissal at pleading stage)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (broad construction of § 230 to encourage e-commerce and protect interactive services)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (§ 230 precludes treating an interactive service as publisher of user-provided content)
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (notice-based liability against interactive services is precluded by § 230)