In most cases, no: you cannot win a defamation lawsuit against a website, app, or social media platform for a false statement that one of its users posted. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars claims that treat an online service as the publisher of someone else’s content. But Section 230 protects the platform, not the person who wrote the post, and it does not protect a site that creates or materially helps develop the defamatory content itself.
This article focuses on that platform question: when a website is shielded, when it is not, and what that means for your strategy. For the underlying claim itself, see our guide to the elements you must prove in a defamation case.
What Section 230 Actually Says
The key sentence is short. Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” A separate provision, § 230(c)(2), protects services that voluntarily remove or restrict material they consider objectionable.
Two definitions do most of the work. An “interactive computer service” covers websites, apps, forums, review platforms, and social networks. An “information content provider” is anyone responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the content. The immunity applies only when the content came from someone else. Section 230 also preempts inconsistent state law, so a Michigan defamation claim against a platform is subject to the same federal limits as a claim anywhere else.
Why Notice Does Not Make a Platform Liable
Many people assume that once they tell a website a post is false, the site becomes responsible if it refuses to take the post down. Courts have rejected that idea since the earliest Section 230 case. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), a man was bombarded with threatening calls after an anonymous user posted his phone number in connection with offensive messages. He repeatedly notified AOL, which he alleged was slow to act. The Fourth Circuit held that Section 230 still barred his claims.
The court explained that lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for traditional editorial functions, such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, or alter content, are barred. It reasoned that liability upon notice would push platforms to remove any challenged speech rather than evaluate it. Zeran remains widely followed, which is why a demand letter to a review site or social network rarely creates legal leverage on its own.
When a Website Loses Section 230 Protection
Section 230 is broad, but it is not unlimited. A platform can be liable in several situations.
The Site Helped Create or Develop the Unlawful Content
In Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit held that a site “develops” content, and loses immunity for it, when it materially contributes to what makes the content unlawful. Roommates.com was not immune for required questionnaire answers it designed, but it was immune for users’ free-form “Additional Comments.” Neutral tools like search functions, star ratings, and open text boxes generally do not cross that line. Writing, editing a post in a way that makes it defamatory, or requiring users to supply the unlawful statement can.
The Content Belongs to the Platform
Section 230 never covers a company’s own speech. If a site’s employees write a defamatory article, a platform publishes its own summary that adds false facts, or a business posts false claims about a competitor on its own pages, the ordinary rules of defamation apply.
The Claim Falls Within a Statutory Exception
Section 230(e) lists what the immunity does not affect:
- Federal criminal law, including federal obscenity and child exploitation statutes
- Intellectual property law, such as copyright and trademark claims
- State law consistent with Section 230 (inconsistent state laws are preempted)
- The Electronic Communications Privacy Act and similar state laws
- Certain sex trafficking claims, added by the 2018 FOSTA amendments
There is no defamation exception. The intellectual property carve-out matters in practice, though: if a defamatory post also copies your photographs or other copyrighted material, a DMCA takedown notice may get that material removed without having to overcome Section 230.
Recent Developments: Algorithms and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has still not defined Section 230’s outer limits. In Gonzalez v. Google LLC (2023), the Court agreed to decide whether YouTube’s recommendations were protected, then declined to address Section 230 at all. It sent the case back in light of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023), decided the same day, which held that the platforms were not liable for aiding and abetting terrorism under federal antiterrorism law. That ruling did not interpret Section 230.
Lower courts have continued to test the boundaries. In Anderson v. TikTok, Inc. (3d Cir. 2024), a wrongful death case, the Third Circuit held that TikTok’s algorithm-driven promotion of a video to a child was the company’s own expressive activity and that Section 230 did not bar the claims. That decision is binding only in the Third Circuit and did not involve defamation. Still, it signals that arguments about a platform’s own design and recommendation choices are getting more traction than they did a decade ago.
Who You Can Hold Responsible Instead
As the Zeran court put it, Section 230 does not mean the original culpable party who posts defamatory messages escapes accountability. In practice, an online defamation strategy usually runs along these tracks:
- Sue the author. The person who wrote the post is fully liable under state defamation law. If the poster is anonymous, a lawsuit against a “John Doe” defendant and a subpoena to the platform can often reveal who it is. Our guide on who to sue when you don’t know who defamed you walks through that process.
- Use platform policies. Section 230 does not prevent removal; it only prevents liability. Many sites will take down content that violates their terms, and many will act on a court order finding a statement defamatory.
- Look for non-defamation claims. Copyright infringement, trademark misuse, and privacy violations may fit the facts better and fall outside the immunity.
- Evaluate the platform’s own role. If the site wrote, edited, or solicited the unlawful content, a direct claim may survive under Roommates.com.
For a full overview of removal routes, including court orders and search engine requests, see your legal options for removing defamatory content online.
Section 230 Shapes the Case Before It Starts
Section 230 does not leave defamation victims without a remedy, but it changes who the defendant is and what a realistic outcome looks like. Suing a large platform over a user’s post almost always ends in early dismissal. Identifying the author, preserving evidence, and pairing a lawsuit with removal strategies usually produces better results. Businesses that operate their own social networks, forums, or user-generated content platforms should understand the same rules from the other side, since design and editorial choices can affect whether immunity applies.
If false statements about you or your business are spreading online, or you run a platform facing a demand to take content down, the internet defamation attorneys at Revision Legal can assess whether Section 230 applies and build a plan that targets the people and content that matter. Contact us through the form on this page or call (855) 473-8474.
