Marshall's Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC
925 F.3d 1263
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- Fourteen lawful locksmith companies sued Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, alleging the search engines publish and amplify “scam” locksmith listings (fake addresses, misleading area codes, etc.), harming legitimate locksmiths and driving them to buy ads.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants publish three types of content: (1) third-party scam websites' listings; (2) "enhanced" content derived from third-party data (e.g., map pinpoints derived from addresses/area codes); and (3) purportedly "original" content fabricated by defendants.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal claims (Lanham Act false advertising, Sherman Act §§1 and 2 antitrust claims) and state-law claims (fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition, conspiracy, breach of contract).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which shields interactive computer services from liability for information provided by another information content provider.
- The district court dismissed seven counts as barred by §230 and dismissed the breach-of-contract claim for failure to state a claim; the plaintiffs appealed the §230 dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are liable for publishing third-party scam websites | Plaintiffs: republication of scam websites (known to be fake) is actionable despite §230; notice of falsity should defeat immunity | Defendants: republication of third-party content is squarely protected by §230 | Held: §230 bars claims based on republication of third-party scam websites; notice does not convert publisher into content provider |
| Whether translating third-party location data into map pinpoints removes §230 immunity | Plaintiffs: converting vague location cues (area codes, region statements) into specific map pins is content development, not mere republication | Defendants: translating third-party location info into map format is a neutral, algorithmic presentation of third-party content covered by §230 | Held: Map pinpoints derived neutrally and algorithmically from third-party data are protected by §230 |
| Whether use of neutral algorithms that may favor scammers forfeits §230 protection | Plaintiffs: algorithmic ranking/placement that results in misleading prominence is a deliberate augmentation creating new content | Defendants: neutral, automated algorithms that do not create underlying content remain protected | Held: Neutral, automated translations are immunized; plaintiffs’ pleading that algorithms were neutral meant §230 applied. Allegations of manual, profit-driven fabrication were forfeited for appeal |
| Whether defendants would be immune if they fabricated listings themselves | Plaintiffs: (implicitly) fabricated content should be actionable | Defendants: argued broader immunity at oral argument (contested) | Held: Court clarified §230 does not protect content that defendants themselves fabricate; immunity covers only information "provided by another information content provider" |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for accepting allegations at motion-to-dismiss)
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (§230 immunizes publishers for third-party content even if notified of falsity)
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir.) (three-prong §230 test and immunity at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Bennett v. Google, LLC, 882 F.3d 1163 (D.C. Cir.) (§230 protects automated editorial acts and neutral tools)
- Kimzey v. Yelp!, Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir.) (aggregation/translation of third-party data into summary metrics is user-generated and protected)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (site does not become information content provider by offering structured forms or neutral tools)