Lansing v. Southwest Airlines Co.
980 N.E.2d 630
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Lansing sued Southwest Airlines for negligent supervision of its employee McGrew who harassed him via emails and texts.
- Lansing notified Southwest of McGrew’s misconduct but alleged the airline failed to supervise or discipline him.
- The conduct spanned 2004–2006 and involved use of Southwest resources, including computers and phones.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Southwest, invoking CDA immunity for e-mails/texts.
- On appeal, the issue was whether CDA immunity barred a negligent supervision claim that did not rely on publishing Third-Party content.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding CDA immunity did not bar Lansing’s negligent supervision claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §230(c)(1) immunize a negligent supervision claim? | Lansing: CDA immunity does not apply because claim rests on failure to supervise. | Southwest: §230(c)(1) provides broad immunity for content-related liability. | CDA does not bar the negligent supervision claim |
| Is Southwest an eligible provider or user of an interactive computer service under §230(f)(2)? | Employer providing Internet access to employees fits ICS. | Only traditional Internet service providers are within §230 scope. | Yes, Southwest qualifies as an ICS provider/uploader |
| Does the claim depend on treating Southwest as publisher/speaker of McGrew's communications? | Claim is based on supervision, not publication. | Immunity covers any content-related claims regardless of theory. | No; negligent supervision does not treat Southwest as publisher |
| Should §230 immunity be interpreted as broad shield for all state torts involving third-party content? | Immunity should not broadly bar negligent supervision where content was created by employee. | Immunity should bar broader ranges of claims arising from third-party content. | No; immunity not blanket; narrowly limited to publishing/speaking content |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (negligent undertaking vs. promissory estoppel distinction under CDA)
- Craigslist, Inc. v. 461 F. Supp. 2d 681, 461 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (cautions against blanket immunity for CDA §230)
- Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008) (limits on publisher/speaker immunity under §230)
- Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (Delfino analyzed broad immunity limits under §230(c))
- GTE Corp. v. Craigslist, Inc., 347 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2003) (broad immunity interpretation questioned; limits under §230)
- Stubhub!, Inc. v. 624 F.3d 363, 624 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2010) (cautions against treating §230(c)(1) as blanket immunity)
- Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003) (analysis of §230 immunities in third-party content)