Larry Klayman v. Mark Zuckerberg
410 U.S. App. D.C. 187
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Larry Klayman found a Facebook page titled “Third Palestinian Intifada” calling for Muslims to kill Jews; the page had hundreds of thousands of members.
- Israel’s Minister for Public Diplomacy and, allegedly, Klayman requested Facebook remove the page; Facebook removed it only after “many days.”
- Klayman sued Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg in D.C. Superior Court alleging intentional assault (reasonable apprehension of severe harm) and negligence (breach of duty by allowing/failing to promptly remove the pages), seeking injunctive relief and over $1 billion in damages.
- Facebook removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) preempts liability.
- The district court dismissed; the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding Section 230 bars Klayman’s claims because Facebook is an interactive computer service, the content was third-party speech, and the suit treats Facebook as the publisher/speaker of that content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook is protected as an "interactive computer service" under §230 | Klayman: Facebook shouldn’t be immune because it can control and police content | Facebook: It meets the statutory definition as an interactive computer service; immunity applies | Held: Facebook (and Zuckerberg) qualify as interactive computer service providers and are protected |
| Whether the challenged content was "provided by another information content provider" | Klayman: Facebook’s actions in hosting and timing of removal made it responsible | Facebook: Content originated from third-party users, not Facebook | Held: Content was third-party speech; Facebook did not create/develop it |
| Whether Klayman’s tort claims seek to hold Facebook as the publisher/speaker | Klayman: Claims arise from contractual duties/special relationship and not publisher status; Statement of Rights shows duty to keep site safe | Facebook: Claims seek liability for decisions to publish/remove — classic publisher functions; users waived contract claims | Held: Claims treat Facebook as publisher; Section 230 bars liability; contractual/special-relationship theory fails |
| Whether Section 230’s safe-harbor is limited by Facebook’s content-control capability or moderation actions | Klayman: Ability to control content should negate immunity | Facebook: §230 expressly protects both hosting and voluntary content-restriction decisions | Held: §230(c)(2) confirms Congress intended to protect moderation; control capability does not defeat immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (§230 protects providers from liability for publishing third-party content and editorial decisions)
- Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) (§230 immunizes decisions to publish, withdraw, or alter content)
- Universal Communications Sys., Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007) (same principle applying §230 to intermediate providers)
- Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (no liability under §230 for monitoring, screening, or deletion decisions)
- Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing when a site materially contributes to illegal content and thus is not protected by §230)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (site protected where it did not contribute to fraudulent nature of third-party comments)
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (statutory text must be enforced as written)