Thedirty.com (“The Dirty”) is a website dedicated to publishing gossip submitted by its users. The Dirty is owned by Nik Lamas-Richie (formally, Hooman Abedi Karamian), who adds a sentence or two of his own to the published pieces of gossip. Notably, many not only consider The Dirty deplorable, but also highly discreditable as submissions are anonymous and fact checking is nonexistent.
Since its inception in 2007, the controversial website has been a target of lawsuits more than once. However, thanks to federal law 47 USC Section 230 (“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act“), many of those cases have been preempted. Specifically, section 230 states that websites are not liable for content that is posted by third parties. This is especially true where users generate content, as is the case on The Dirty. In the past, section 230 protected websites from liability even where editorial control and knowledge of defamation existed. However, in January 2012, a federal district court ruling in one case against The Dirty appeared to sidestep past legal precedent concerning section 230 defenses. As discussed below, that ruling was later reversed on appeal.
In particularly, ex-NFL cheerleader Sarah Jones initiated a lawsuit against The Dirty in 2009 when two posts appeared on its website alleging that she had STDS and that she engaged in sexual acts with an entire pro football team. The Dirty used Section 230 as a defense, and in January 2012 a Kentucky federal judge rejected the defense stating that “the manner in which [the site] is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie, the defendants have specifically encouraged development of what is offensive about the content of the site.” Given this standard, the judge has been criticized for allowing his opinion of the website to overcome any true legal reasoning for rejecting The Dirty’s section 230 defense when it was used in the precise situation it was designed to prevent. The rejection of this defense allowed the case to go to a jury who awarded Jones $338,000 in damages. The court in this case remained criticized for a jury instruction that stated The Dirty, as the defendant, had the same duties and liabilities for re-publishing libelous material as the original authors of the materials. This instruction acts to completely override section 230.
Not surprisingly, The Dirty appealed, and along with their initial brief to the court, four separate amicus briefs were filed in support of it as well. Namely, signatories on the briefs in support of The Dirty include Amazon, AOL, eBay, Google, Facebook, Gawker, LinkedIn, Twitter, and more. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had discretion whether to accept the briefs.
Update: In June 2014, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014). The court held that Section 230 barred Jones’s defamation claims against The Dirty and Richie, vacated the $338,000 jury verdict, and directed entry of judgment for the defendants. The court’s reasoning is summarized below.
The support from these user-generated companies is summed up by the AOL et al brief: “Amici cannot emphasize enough the degree to which the protection afforded by Section 230(c)(1), as consistently interpreted by courts, has played a critical role in fostering the development and growth of interactive services that both empower users and encourage innovation and self-regulation.”
The Sixth Circuit’s Resolution: Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment
The Sixth Circuit ultimately reversed the district court’s rejection of Section 230 immunity in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014). The court rejected the district court’s “encouragement” test — under which a website could lose Section 230 immunity by specifically encouraging the development of offensive content — and instead adopted a “material contribution” test: a website operator is responsible for “developing” content, and loses immunity, only if it materially contributes to what makes the content unlawful.
The Sixth Circuit held that Richie’s brief editorial comments — a sentence or two added to user-submitted posts, which were not themselves alleged to be defamatory — did not make him a creator or developer of the defamatory statements in the user’s posts. To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would expose every interactive platform to liability for adding any degree of editorial commentary to user-generated content, effectively destroying Section 230’s core purpose. The $338,000 verdict was vacated.
Section 230’s Broad Protections — and Their Limits
Section 230(c)(1) provides that 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. This immunity is remarkably broad: it covers platforms that know about defamatory content and choose not to remove it, platforms that exercise editorial control over what is published, and platforms whose business model depends on user-generated content that might include defamatory material.
But Section 230 has meaningful exceptions. It does not immunize platforms from federal criminal liability. It does not apply to intellectual property claims — a platform cannot invoke Section 230 to escape copyright or trademark infringement claims arising from user-posted content (though the DMCA provides a separate safe harbor for copyright). And it does not protect the original poster: the person who actually wrote the defamatory content remains fully liable under applicable state law.
Since this case was decided, Congress has added one more exception. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (together, FOSTA-SESTA), enacted in April 2018, provide that Section 230 does not bar federal civil claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 when the underlying conduct violates the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, or certain state criminal prosecutions for sex trafficking or for promoting or facilitating prostitution (47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)). The exception does not affect defamation claims like the one against TheDirty.com.
Section 230 in the Modern Internet
Section 230 remains one of the most debated provisions in internet law. Critics argue that it shields platforms from accountability for harmful content — misinformation, harassment, defamation, and exploitation — that they profit from and could prevent. Defenders argue that without Section 230, the internet as we know it could not function: the cost of reviewing every piece of user-generated content before publication would be prohibitive, and the litigation exposure for hosting any user speech would be crushing for small platforms and startups.
Congress has considered numerous Section 230 reform proposals, and courts have continued to refine the contours of the immunity through case-by-case adjudication. Revision Legal monitors these developments closely to advise online businesses on how to structure their content policies, terms of service, and moderation practices to preserve Section 230 protection while managing legal risk.
If you are faced with an online defamation or privacy related issue, or if you are a computer service provider that wants to take advantage of Section 230 immunity, contact Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Practical Implications for Online Businesses
The TheDirty.com litigation and its eventual resolution by the Sixth Circuit provide important guidance for online platforms and content-dependent businesses. First, Section 230 immunity is real and substantial — it protects platforms from liability for user-generated content even where the platform has some knowledge of and editorial involvement in the content. Second, immunity is not absolute — adding content that materially contributes to the illegality of user-generated content can destroy the immunity. Third, the line between protected editorial curation and unprotected content creation requires careful legal analysis in any given case.
For businesses that host user-generated content, the practical guidance is: review your content moderation policies and terms of service with an attorney familiar with Section 230 law; ensure that your platform’s editorial involvement stays on the protected side of the immunity line; implement robust DMCA compliance procedures; and establish clear processes for responding to defamation claims and other third-party complaints. Proactive legal planning is far less expensive than reactive litigation after a platform loses Section 230 immunity.
If you are faced with an online defamation or privacy related issue, or if you are a computer service provider seeking to understand and preserve Section 230 immunity, contact Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Why Work with Revision Legal?
Revision Legal is an internet and intellectual property law firm. We represent startups, artists, e-commerce sellers, and established companies across the United States and around the world in trademark, copyright, trade secret, privacy, and internet law matters. That work is our entire practice, not a side line.
Our attorneys have litigated in federal courts from coast to coast, before the World Intellectual Property Organization, and in international arbitration. We have taken on overseas counterfeiting networks, domain name thieves, and some of the largest companies in the world on behalf of our clients. We also handle the day-to-day work that keeps a business protected: trademark clearance and registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and licensing agreements.
We answer the phone, tell clients the truth about their cases, and treat legal fees as a business decision. Most of our work is handled entirely remotely, so where you are located matters far less than what you need protected. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
