Yasmeen Daniel v. Armslist, LLC
2019 WI 47
Wis.2019Background
- In 2012 Radcliffe Haughton (a prohibited person under a restraining order) used Armslist.com to contact a private seller, Devin Linn, and purchased a semiautomatic handgun; the next day he murdered his wife, Zina Haughton, and others.
- Armslist is an online classified marketplace that lets users post firearm sale ads, use a contact tool, and filter for private sellers; it does not require accounts, background checks, or permit flagging posts as illegal.
- Daniel (Zina’s daughter) sued Armslist alleging negligence, negligence per se, public nuisance, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, and veil-piercing, claiming Armslist designed the site to facilitate illegal sales to prohibited purchasers.
- Armslist moved to dismiss under Fed. Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230(c)(1), arguing it is an interactive computer service immune from liability for third-party content; the circuit court granted dismissal.
- The court of appeals reversed, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed dismissal, holding § 230(c)(1) bars Daniel’s claims against Armslist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Armslist is an "information content provider" for the Linn ad (i.e., whether it "developed" the content) | Armslist’s website design and search/filter features materially contributed to and were intended to facilitate illegal sales, so Armslist helped develop the ad | Armslist provided neutral publishing tools (forum, contact tool, filters) and did not create or materially contribute to Linn’s ad | Held: Armslist was not an information content provider; its features are neutral tools and did not materially contribute to the ad’s illegality |
| Whether § 230(c)(1) bars plaintiff’s state-law tort claims | Claims allege Armslist’s own conduct (design/operation) facilitating illegal sales, not mere publication of third‑party content | Even artfully pled claims that rest on the publication, display, or facilitation of third‑party posts are barred by § 230(c)(1) | Held: Plaintiff’s claims inherently require treating Armslist as the publisher/speaker of third‑party content and are therefore precluded by § 230(c)(1) |
| Whether the defendant’s alleged knowledge or intent to facilitate illegality removes CDA immunity | Intent/knowledge shows Armslist deliberately designed the site to enable illegal sales and thus created actionable conduct | § 230(c)(1) has no good‑faith/intent exception; subjective intent does not negate immunity absent material contribution to content development | Held: Knowledge or intent does not defeat § 230 immunity; no good‑faith/intent exception exists |
| Whether various common‑law claims (negligence, negligence per se, aiding/abetting, public nuisance, conspiracy, wrongful death, etc.) can proceed despite § 230 | These claims rest on Armslist’s operational design choices and are independent of third‑party speech | Each claim derives from Armslist’s role as publisher of third‑party ads; allowing them would circumvent § 230 | Held: All asserted claims depend on treating Armslist as publisher/speaker of third‑party content and are dismissed under § 230(c)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (1997) (§ 230 precludes treating service providers as publishers for third‑party content)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (2008) (material‑contribution test: mandatory site requirements that produce illegal content remove § 230 immunity)
- Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir.) (2008) (neutral hosting of discriminatory ads does not constitute material contribution)
- Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (2016) (claims based on site design that rely on third‑party content are barred by § 230)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (2009) (court must ask whether the duty alleged derives from defendant’s role as publisher/speaker)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (2003) (site immune where it provided neutral tools used by third parties to publish defamatory content)
- FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 838 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.) (2016) (§ 230 did not protect a defendant who directed and edited deceptive ads and thus materially contributed to illegal content)
- Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal.) (2009) (keyword suggestion tool is a neutral tool; knowledge of misuse does not eliminate § 230 immunity)