TheDirty.com Tests Section 230 Protections

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, as of January 2012, one case in particular against The Dirty has seemingly sidestepped past legal precedent concerning section 230 defenses.

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. Notably, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has the discretion to reject the briefs.

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 “material contribution” test — under which a website could lose Section 230 immunity by specifically encouraging illegal or harmful content — and instead reaffirmed the traditional interpretation of Section 230: immunity applies unless the defendant is the “information content provider” who created or developed the unlawful content.

The Sixth Circuit held that Richie’s brief editorial comments — a sentence or two added to user-submitted posts — did not transform him from a passive republisher into a co-creator of the user’s content. 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.

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 a national intellectual property and internet law firm that represents clients across the United States in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and internet law matters. We are a firm of specialists — not general practitioners who handle IP work as one component of a broad practice, but attorneys whose entire professional focus is on the intersection of technology, creativity, and commerce.

Our attorneys have handled cases at every level of the federal court system, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We manage trademark portfolios for hundreds of clients, ranging from individual entrepreneurs registering their first mark to publicly traded companies maintaining global trademark portfolios across dozens of countries.

We believe that access to expert legal counsel should not depend on the size of your organization. Revision Legal’s flat-fee service model for routine IP matters — trademark registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and standard licensing agreements — allows small businesses, startups, and individual creators to access the same quality of legal representation that larger companies receive, at a price that is predictable and fair. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we work efficiently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients while managing costs responsibly.

Whatever your intellectual property or internet law need — whether you are protecting a new brand, enforcing your rights against an infringer, defending against a legal demand, or navigating a complex licensing transaction — Revision Legal has the expertise to help. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.