230 provides protection against liability, not immediately appealable immunity from suit

General Steel Domestic Sales, L.L.C. v. Chumley, No. 15-1293
(10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)
Defendants (Armstrong Steel) appealed from the district
court’s denial of CDA §230 immunity for a number of General Steel’s false
advertising claims.  Armstrong ran an
online ad campaign that included twenty posts summarizing, quoting, and
referencing lawsuits involving General Steel. While the district court found
that Armstrong Steel was entitled to immunity for three posts because those
posts simply contained links to content created by third parties, it found that
Armstrong created and developed the content of the remaining seventeen posts
and the internet search ads leading to Armstrong’s pages; the district court
found that the defendants developed the content by selectively quoting and
summarizing court documents in a deceptive way, and that CDA immunity didn’t
apply to the Lanham Act.
The court of appeals refused to allow Armstrong Steel to
appeal the §230 ruling before final judgment. 
The denial of §230 immunity would be appealable as a collateral order if
(as relevant here) it would be unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,
which would only be true if §230 provides immunity from suit, not just immunity
from liability.  This requires “an explicit
statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,” but the CDA doesn’t
have language clearly indicating such a guarantee.  Section 230(e)(3) states: “No cause of action
may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law
that is inconsistent with this section.” But “reading the text in its entirety
reveals that 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3) is merely a preemption provision.”

Armstrong Steel argued that construing §230 as a bar against
suit would further congressional intent, but the statute simply doesn’t say
that. Furthermore, immunity from suit is a benefit typically reserved for
governmental officials, in the absence of a close connection to government or a
historical basis for providing immunity to that type of private entity, neither
of which were present here.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2ezIUoU

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s