• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Does eBay commit libel when eBay knowingly publishes false negative feedback

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

winwindealman

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Does eBay commit libel when eBay knowingly publishes false negative feedback?

Such libelous acts defame my reputation and community standing.

eBay is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of California, and I live in California. Small Claims Court jurisdiction applies as well as trial court jurisdiction.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


seniorjudge

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Does eBay commit libel when eBay knowingly publishes false negative feedback?

Such libelous acts defame my reputation and community standing.

eBay is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of California, and I live in California. Small Claims Court jurisdiction applies as well as trial court jurisdiction.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?


Congratulations!

You are the TEN MILLIONTH PERSON who has asked this question on this forum.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Actually, no, Cameron. Ebay would only be liable if they contributed to the content of the defamatory statement made. The person who writes the libelous material is the one who is liable.

Check out the post by ariastar "Just to Double Check." Tranquility and I went in to great detail on this very subject.
 
Last edited:
Actually, no, Cameron. Ebay would only be liable if they contributed to the content of the defamatory statement made. The person who writes the libelous material is the one who is liable.

Check out the post by ariastar "Just to Double Check." Tranquility and I went in to great detail on this very subject.
Actually, no, Quincy. A person who knowingly publishes defamatory statements is liable for defamation himself. The publisher does not need to author the statement.
 
I stand corrected. It seems clear that in California (and possibly other jurisdictions), eBay would get a free pass for purposely republishing defamatory statements on the internet. I wasn't aware of this exception to the general rule. Thank you (and Quincy) for correcting me. :)
 

quincy

Senior Member
What the Communications Decency Act section 230 says:

"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 section of the CDA does not apply to content appearing in a newspaper or a book, as the publishers of newspapers and books have editorial control over the content of the material they publish and are not mere distributors of the material. They could, therefore, be held liable for any defamatory content appearing, as could the original author of the content.

Courts are applying 230 to ISPs and websites, and the ISPs and websites are looked at by the courts, for the most part, as distributors of content and not publishers of content, thereby giving these ISPs and websites immunity from prosecution over the content they display. Distributors have no control over the content of what they distribute (think libraries or bookstores).

So, if you are a passive host, the content posted by third parties does not affect your immunity as long as you do not alter the meaning of any content submitted (by editing a non-defamatory statement to make it defamatory, for instance). A website can prescreen, correct or remove content and not lose their immunity. A website can even pay a third party to create or submit material and 230 will protect the site from liability.

The CDA's 230 does not provide an ISP or website with total immunity from all lawsuits, however, so an attorney should review the role a website has in the content appearing on its site to ensure the site does not share with the author of the content any liability for the content.
 
Last edited:
Courts are applying 230 to ISPs and websites, and the ISPs and websites are looked at by the courts, for the most part, as distributors of content and not publishers of content, thereby giving these ISPs and websites immunity from prosecution over the content they display. Distributors have no control over the content of what they distribute (think libraries or bookstores).
That's not exactly what the Barrett case states. The gist is that publishers are immune under 230, and distributors are publishers.
 

quincy

Senior Member
When section 230 is used, the court looks at whether the ISP or website can be considered a publisher of content or not. They escape liability when they can be shown to be distributors and not publishers.

The CDA has been applied in more than just Barrett. Barrett is just the applicable California case.

There has been Bauer v. Wild, Donato v. Moldow, Corbis Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc., Batzel v. Smith, Blumenthal v. Drudge, Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Prickett v. InfoUSA, Inc., Zeran v. American Online, among others, and most of the court cases have been pretty unanimous in finding the websites immune under 230 because they are distributors of content and do not have editorial control over the content as a newspaper or book publisher does.

Recently, the decision in Fair Housing of Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com contradicted, a bit, the Barrett decision and its application of 230, and there have been a scattering of other cases across the country that are showing ISPs and websites will share liability with the third party content provider under certain circumstances. The judge in the Roommates case, however, did offer further explanation of his decision, but his original decision shows that the CDA cannot be relied on entirely to protect a site from prosecution.
 
Last edited:

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
Quincy, don't forget to factor in that most decisions coming out of the 9th Circuit are first laughed at, then ignored, by the other Circuits, for a reason ;)
 
When section 320 is used, the court looks at whether the ISP or website can be considered a publisher of content or not. They escape liability when they can be shown to be distributors and not publishers.

The CDA has been applied in more than just Barrett. Barrett is just the applicable California case.

There has been Bauer v. Wild, Donato v. Moldow, Corbis Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc., Batzel v. Smith, Blumenthal v. Drudge, Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Prickett v. InfoUSA, Inc., Zeran v. American Online, among others, and most of the court cases have been pretty unanimous in finding the websites immune under 320 because they are distributors of content and do not have editorial control over the content as a newspaper or book publisher does.

Recently, the decision in Fair Housing of Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com contradicted, a bit, the Barrett decision and its application of 320, and there have been a scattering of other cases across the country that are showing ISPs and websites will share liability with the third party content provider under certain circumstances. The judge in the Roommates case, however, did offer further explanation of his decision, but his original decision shows that the CDA cannot be relied on entirely to protect a site from prosecution.
I think you've misread the case law you are citing. For example, here's a quote from Donato v. Moldow:

§ 230 responded to a New York state court decision, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995). There, the plaintiffs sued Prodigy—an interactive computer service like AOL—for defamatory comments made by an unidentified party on one of Prodigy's bulletin boards. The court held Prodigy to the strict liability standard normally applied to original publishers of defamatory statements, rejecting Prodigy's claims that it should be held only to the lower "knowledge" standard usually reserved for distributors. The court reasoned that Prodigy acted more like an original publisher than a distributor both because it advertised its practice of controlling content on its service and because it actively screened and edited messages posted on its bulletin boards.
If 230 were only meant to give immunity to distributors, then why would it be a response to the New York case in which the defendant was not deemed to be a distributor? How would 230 have changed the outcome?

The same court also states:

By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content—are barred.
Publisher liability is what is barred (and distributor liablity -- according to Barrett -- is barred because distributors are publishers).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top