Online defamation victims are often frustrated to find that a website on which defamatory posts appear will not remove the defamation. Many clients have contacted our firm because a third party has posted false or defamatory reviews or statements to one of the large consumer-oriented websites, such as RipOffReport, Complaints Board, or Pissed Consumer. These sites, along with others, are notorious for declining to remove posts even where the victim has provided substantial evidence showing that they have been defamed. These sites are shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides interactive computer services with immunity from liability for the republication of defamatory or invasive statements.
Section 230 states that a provider of an interactive computer service will not be treated as a speaker or publisher of any information provided by an information content provider. This means that, as long as a website does not create the content itself, it cannot be held liable for the republication of defamatory or invasive statements. At common law, a newspaper could be held equally as liable for its publishing of the defamatory statements of its reporters as the reporters themselves because a newspaper was presumed to have control over the content published in its newspaper. At the start of the Internet age, courts continued this doctrine, which made online services, such as Prodigy, liable if they exercised editorial control over the content published through their services. In Congress’ mind, this created a disincentive–if Prodigy removed or edited defamatory content, it could be held liable as a publisher.
Consequently, Congress enacted Section 230, which was intended to provide service providers with an incentive to self-police the content of their websites. Unfortunately, many websites soon began to take advantage of the blanket immunity granted by the Act and created business models that take a notorious hands-off approach to the republication of false and defamatory content. Subsequently cases have consistently upheld that immunity, and numerous cases have been dismissed on Section 230 grounds.
Not all claims, however, are barred by Section 230. Though Section 230 provides blanket immunity for tort claims against interactive computer services, it does not provide immunity from prosecution for intellectual property infringement. Thus, it is important to contact an Internet defamation attorney to ensure that you understand all of your rights under the law.
In May 2025, as part of a settlement of litigation involving college football, a new entity was created called the College Sports Commission (“CSC” or “Commission”). See news media reports here and here. Among many other purposes, the CSC will monitor and approve name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) agreements for college athletes. As the term […]
Read more about Fairness Factors For Your College NIL Agreement
Trademarks are words, designs, symbols, logos, and other things that are used/associated with goods or services that identify the specific commercial source of the goods/services. COCA-COLA, APPLE, and GUCCI are just a few famous examples. If COCA-COLA is on the bottle, consumers know what to expect from the beverage in the bottle. The same for […]
Read more about Is a “Fanciful” Trademark the Best Type of Trademark?
Getting an endorsement deal as a social media influencer may be a seminal event financially and for the progress of your career. However, the question always has to be asked whether your endorsement deal is fair. In other words, are you getting paid what you are worth? There are a number of factors that can […]
Read more about Is Your Social Media Influencer Endorsement Deal Fair?