Roca Labs, Inc. v. Consumer Opinion Corp.
140 F. Supp. 3d 1311
M.D. Fla.2015Background
- Roca Labs sued Consumer Opinion Corp. and Opinion Corp. (operators of pissedconsumer.com) alleging FDUTPA, tortious interference, defamation (site and Twitter), and declaratory relief based on third‑party negative reviews and tweets.
- Pissedconsumer.com allows third parties to submit complaints via a multi‑step form (title/body, selectable categories, optional contact info); site operators summarize submitted content into statistics and sometimes tweet shortened excerpts with links/handles.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court; cross‑motions for summary judgment were filed.
- Defendants invoke Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as immunity against Roca’s claims; Roca argues defendants are information content providers because they edited/curated, summarized data, used SEO, and tweeted extracts.
- The Court considered timeliness of Roca’s Requests for Admission and denied deeming them admitted by default.
- The Court granted defendants’ summary judgment motions and entered judgment for Consumer Opinion Corp. and Opinion Corp., dismissing all counts against them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to CDA §230 immunity | Roca: defendants acted as information content providers by trimming tweets, adding handles/links, using drop‑down inputs, summarizing data, and accepting paid testimonials. | Defs: they are interactive computer service providers/users; tweets and summaries derive from third‑party content and edits are non‑substantive publisher functions. | Held: Defs are service providers/users and retain §230 immunity; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether tweeting/shortening third‑party posts or adding handles/links makes defendants content creators | Roca: trimming and adding handles/links materially altered content and created/promoted statements. | Defs: trimming, teaser reposting, adding handles/links are customary publisher functions that do not create the underlying content. | Held: Trimming/teasers and adding links/handles did not make defendants content providers; §230 immunity applies. |
| Whether summarizing data/statistics or using SEO converts defendants into content developers | Roca: defendants created meaning by producing statistics and manipulating search results. | Defs: statistics and SEO are representations of user‑submitted information and do not materially contribute to alleged illegality. | Held: Summaries/statistics and SEO do not defeat §230 immunity; defendants did not materially contribute to unlawfulness. |
| Whether Roca’s FDUTPA claims survive despite CDA immunity | Roca: consumer confusion and lost sales caused by defendants’ failure/refusal to remove posts supports FDUTPA liability. | Defs: CDA preempts state claims that treat providers as publishers/speakers; liability for refusing to remove third‑party content is barred. | Held: FDUTPA claims barred by §230; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Whether Roca’s Requests for Admission were admitted by default | Roca: requests should be deemed admitted due to no timely response. | Defs: requests were untimely under the court’s discovery deadline; not admitted. | Held: Requests were untimely and not deemed admitted; Roca’s admission‑by‑default argument rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Zeran v. American Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (broad §230 immunity for interactive services)
- Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. American Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir.) (§230 preempts defamation and related claims)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing service provider vs. content provider)
- Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (when site operator becomes content developer)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (editing user content generally preserved §230 immunity)
- Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (material contribution test)
- Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal.App.4th 816 (Cal. Ct. App.) (summaries/ratings reflecting user info do not create content)
- Directory Assistants, Inc. v. SuperMedia, LLC, 884 F.Supp.2d 446 (E.D. Va.) (linking/forwarding user posts not content creation)