Parisi v. Sinclair
774 F. Supp. 2d 310
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege defamation and related torts arising from the online and retail distribution of Larry Sinclair's book about Barack Obama.
- Defendants BAM, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon sold or listed the Sinclair book; promotional material on each site allegedly repeated defamatory statements.
- Plaintiffs seek damages for five claims including libel per se, false light, business disparagement, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy.
- The court addresses each defendant's CDA § 230 immunity and whether the booksellers can be liable as distributors.
- The court analyzes whether the statements were created by a content provider and whether the booksellers acted as publishers or distributors with actual malice.
- The court grants BAM's dismissal and B&N's and Amazon's summary judgments, finding CDA immunity or lack of malice as to each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BAM is immune under CDA § 230 | BAM shaped or adopted statements, thus not immune. | BAM did not create or develop the statements; immune as a publisher. | BAM entitled to CDA immunity; claims dismissed. |
| Whether B&N and Amazon are immune under CDA § 230 for the promotional statements | Both were information content providers; immunity should not bar claims. | Both received content from Lightening Source and did not edit it; immune as distributors. | B&N and Amazon entitled to CDA immunity for the promotional statements; claims dismissed. |
| Whether the use of Parisi's name falls within the CDA newsworthiness/IP carve-out | Right of publicity claim survives CDA carve-out. | Use is newsworthy and protected; not actionable as a misappropriation. | Right of publicity claim dismissed as newsworthy protection applies. |
| Whether the booksellers can be liable as distributors for defamation requiring actual malice | Distributors may be liable for published defamation if actual malice shown. | No showing of actual malice; post-publication notices do not prove malice; content not created by them. | Summary judgment for B&N and Amazon; no genuine issue of actual malice; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (CDA immunity for content published by another party)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 544 (E.D. Va. 2008) (CDA immunity framework; three-part test)
- Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) (CDA immunity principles for internet publishers)
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (immunity for publishers of third-party content)
- Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1988) (actual malice standard for defamation plaintiffs)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice required for public figures)
- Washington Post Co. v. Keogh, 365 F.2d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (prima facie proof and actual malice considerations)
- Lane v. Random House, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 141 (D.D.C. 1995) (newsworthiness exception to misappropriation claims)