Hypothetical Number 1

George Gentry (GG) used eBay's on-line auction service to purchase sports memorabilia from an eBay seller. Claiming the items bore forged autographs, he sued eBay for negligence and unfair trade practices. eBay filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was immune from liability on both claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Is eBay eligible for Section 230 immunity?

Hypothetical Number 2

Jones works for Big Corp., Inc. (BCI). His employer provides him with a networked desktop computer that includes internet access. Internet access is available on BCI’s computers because it has a contract with AT&T to provide internet service. While at work Jones has sent a large number of harassing e-mails to the Smith family. The Smith family has sued both Jones and BCI for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  BCI has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it is immune from this claim under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Should the court grant BCI’s motion to dismiss?

Hypothetical Number 3

A  and B both hate C.  A writes a defamatory article about C.  B writes a defamatory article about C.  A gives B his article and B gives A her article.  A posts B's article on a social networking site and B posts A's article on the same site.

Are A and B immune from liability for defamation under Section 230?

Hypothetical Number 4

infoUSA is a leading compiler of several proprietary databases. The databases capture information about businesses and consumer households in the United States and Canada. InfoUSA uses many sources to compile information for the databases, including information received over the internet from third parties. InfoUSA regularly disseminates and distributes its database information to customers and the public in general. It provides its database information to its customers via the internet and maintains a website for this purpose. The website allows customers and other third parties to access certain database information, request changes to existing database information and request that new listings be added to one or more of the databases. Each month, infoUSA receives over eleven million page views on its directory assistance sites.

On April 18, 2003, eighty-two requests were made over the internet to add new listings to the business database. Of those requests, an unknown third party requested that infoUSA add the business "D. Prickett" to its business database. The anonymous third party was provided a blank space in which to enter the primary line of business. The anonymous third party classified D. Prickett's primary line of business as "Entertainers -- Adult." Similarly, on April 18, 2003, an unknown third party requested that the Defendant add the business "Linton" to its business database. The anonymous third party classified Linton's primary line of business as "Women's Underwear and Lingerie -- Retail."

Sarah Smith (SS) has filed suit against infoUSA for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The directory information for D. Prickett and Linton was false and listed her phone number and address for those businesses.  She has been inundated with sexually explicit calls and upsetting visitors to her house since the listing appeared.  

InfoUSA has filed a motion to dismiss based on Section 230.  Should it be granted?