Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

In this second installment of our six-part series examining Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes online service providers from liability stemming from the publication and filtering of content created by their users or other third parties, we’ll examine some of the most significant cases that interpreted and applied the statute in the fifteen (or so) years following its enactment.

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

PART 2(b) – Section 230: 27 Years Old and Still in the Spotlight | Socially Aware

Julie O'Neill

In this second installment of our six-part series examining Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes online service providers from liability stemming from the publication and filtering of content created by their users or other third parties, we’ll examine some of the most significant cases that interpreted and applied the statute in the fifteen (or so) years following its enactment.These cases show a general trend of courts interpreting the statutory language broadly: rejecting any distinction between publisher and distributor liability for purposes of the Section 230 safe harbor, giving wide latitude to the types of platforms that qualify as “interactive computer services” and to who counts as a “provider or user” of such services, and clarifying that Section 230 immunity is not limited to defamation claims but rather extends to any claim or cause of action that treats the defendant as a “publisher or speaker” of third-party information.But some of these early cases also imposed limits on the broad scope of Section 230 and planted the analytical seeds that would eventually lead to the more recent trend of cases interpreting the statute less expansively, which we will cover in our third installment of this series.Due to length, we split this second installment into two parts and published the <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/part-2-a-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight-" target="_blank" dir="ltr">first part</a> yesterday, so please start with that if you have not yet seen it.And if you want to catch up on the origins and prehistory of Section 230, you can read the first installment of this series <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/part-1-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight" target="_blank" dir="ltr">here</a>.Ninth Circuit Imposes Important Limit on Broad Scope of Section 230 ImmunityAs we have seen, the early trend in the cases was to interpret the Section 230 immunity broadly. But the 2008 Ninth Circuit case, <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1466388.html" target="_blank">Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com</a>, imposed an important limitation on the Section 230 safe harbor. In Roommates.com, the defendant, an online roommate-finding service, required users to choose among predetermined responses to questions that asked for users’ preferences in sex, sexual orientation, and family status of a future roommate, allegedly in violation of the Fair Housing Act.Roommates.com argued that, under Section 230, it could not be held liable for its users’ allegedly discriminatory responses to these questions. The court rejected this argument based on its interpretation of the term “development” as used in Section 230’s definition of “information content provider” (i.e., as set forth in Section 230(f)(3), “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service”):<blockquote dir="ltr">[W]e interpret the term “development” as referring not merely to augmenting the content generally, but to materially contributing to its alleged unlawfulness. In other words, a website helps to develop unlawful content, and thus falls within the exception to section 230, if it contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct.</blockquote>Based on this interpretation, the court held that, by requiring users to choose among predetermined responses, Roommates.com was affirmatively “inducing third parties to express illegal preferences,” making the site a “co-developer” of the content and, therefore, an information content provider for purposes of Section 230:<blockquote dir="ltr">Roommate created the questions and choice of answers, and designed its website registration process around them. Therefore, Roommate is undoubtedly the “information content provider” as to the questions and can claim no immunity for posting them on its website, or for forcing subscribers to answer them as a condition of using its services.</blockquote>By contrast, the court held that Roommates.com was entitled to Section 230 immunity with respect to user content entered into “neutral tools” on the website, such as a general comment field where users could enter criteria or preferences in a roommate.Interestingly, after much litigation over the Section 230 issue and the en banc holding that Roommates.com was not entitled to immunity with respect to the dropdown menu, Roommates.com did ultimately prevail on the substantive Fair Housing Act claim, with the Ninth Circuit holding in 2012 that Roommates.com had not acted illegally because roommates who share a home are not covered by the Fair Housing Act.                                               Ninth Circuit Considers Whether Plaintiff’s Claims Treat Defendant as Publisher or Speaker for Purposes of Section 230It is common for plaintiffs in Section 230 cases to argue that their claims do not seek to hold an online platform liable as a publisher or speaker of third-party content and, therefore, are not barred by Section 230. That was plaintiff Cecilia Barnes’s approach in <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/barnes-v-yahoo.pdf" target="_blank" dir="ltr">Barnes v. Yahoo!</a>, a Ninth Circuit case from 2009.Barnes’ ex-boyfriend created several fake and unauthorized Yahoo profiles of Barnes with nude photographs of her as well as her personal contact information. He also pretended to be Barnes in Yahoo chat rooms and directed men to the falsified profiles, which resulted in Barnes receiving solicitations online, by phone, and from in-person visits to her office.Barnes made several requests to Yahoo to remove the fake profiles, but her efforts were unsuccessful. Eventually, a Yahoo representative contacted Barnes and told her that he would make sure the fake profiles were removed. However, the profiles remained on Yahoo’s website for another two months before they were finally removed.Barnes sued Yahoo alleging what the Ninth Circuit construed as two claims under Oregon law: first, a tort claim that Yahoo acted negligently when it failed to remove the fake profiles after having said that it would do so; and second, a claim for promissory estoppel based on Yahoo’s alleged unfulfilled promise to remove the profiles.The district court held that, under Section 230, Yahoo could not be held liable for the fake profiles and dismissed Barnes’s claims. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court with respect to Barnes’s negligence claim, despite Barnes’s argument that “this tort claim would not treat Yahoo as a publisher . . . but rather as one who undertook to perform a service and did it negligently.”Rejecting this argument, the court held that “a plaintiff cannot sue someone for publishing third-party content simply by changing the name of the theory from defamation to negligence. Nor can he or she escape section 230(c) by labeling as a ‘negligent undertaking’ an action that is quintessentially that of a publisher.” The principle that Section 230 immunizes publishing conduct—i.e., “any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online”—regardless of the specific cause of action is an important one, as we will see in subsequent cases.The Ninth Circuit declined, however, to apply this principle to Barnes’s promissory estoppel claim based on the Yahoo representative’s promise to remove the fake profiles. The distinction, according to the court, was that “[c]ontract liability here would come not from Yahoo’s publishing conduct, but from Yahoo’s manifest intention to be legally obligated to do something, which happens to be removal of material from publication.” In other words, according to the court, Barnes’s promissory estoppel claim does not target Yahoo’s failure to remove the fake profiles per se (which would constitute publishing conduct within the scope of Section 230), but rather Yahoo’s unfulfilled promise to remove the fake profiles. Therefore, the court held, “insofar as Barnes alleges a breach of contract claim under the theory of promissory estoppel, subsection 230(c)(1) of the Act does not preclude her cause of action.”Courts Reach Different Conclusions Regarding Whether Section 230 Applies to Website That Encouraged Posting of Defamatory ContentIn 2012, a pair of district court decisions based on similar facts split on whether defendant TheDirty.com, a gossip website, qualified for immunity under Section 230. The website invited users to “submit dirt” about themselves or others via a submission form requesting the basics of the “dirt,” with fields for “what’s happening” and “who, what, when, where, why,” and a link for users to upload photographs. Website operator Nik Richie then reposted the content, sometimes adding his own comments. Unsurprisingly, unhappy subjects of the gossip postings <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/08/thedirty_defeat_1.htm" target="_blank" dir="ltr">have sued</a> Richie and his company <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/thedirty_defeat.htm" target="_blank">on numerous occasions</a>. In one case, Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, former teacher and Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones brought defamation and other state law claims related to two user-submitted posts showing her photo and stating that she had sex with players and contracted sexually transmitted diseases. The posts included Jones’s picture and statements regarding her sex partners, as well as allegations that she had sexually transmitted diseases. Richie added a one-line comment— “why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?”—and published the posts.Richie moved for judgment as a matter of law on grounds that Section 230 gave him immunity as the “provider of an interactive computer service” because, he argued, the defamatory content originated with a user of the site and not Richie, though he had added his own comments. The court denied the motion, citing “the very name of the site, the manner in which it is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie” as leading to its conclusion that Richie “specifically encouraged development of what is offensive about the content” and thereby lost immunity under Section 230.In the second of the two cases, <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/16/" target="_blank">S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC</a>, in the Western District of Missouri, the court held that Richie and TheDirty.com did qualify for Section 230 immunity on facts similar to those in Jones. The plaintiff in S.C. brought suit based on a user-generated post on TheDirty.com that showed her picture along with a description alleging that she had relations with the user’s boyfriend and attempted to do so with the user’s son. Richie published the post, adding a comment about the plaintiff’s appearance. The court explained that, because a third party authored the allegedly defamatory content, CDA immunity turned on whether TheDirty “developed” the content by having “materially contribute[d] to [its] alleged illegality.” The court held that the defendants did not materially contribute to the post’s alleged illegality because the defendants never instructed or requested the third party to submit the post at issue, “did nothing to specifically induce it,” and did not add to or substantively alter the post before publishing it on the site.Turning back to Jones, after a mistrial and a second trial that resulted in a verdict in favor of Jones for $338,000 in damages, the <a href="http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0125p-06.pdf" target="_blank" dir="ltr">Sixth Circuit</a> took up Dirty World’s appeal. The Sixth Circuit noted that Section 230 applies “only to the extent that an interactive computer service provider is not also the information content provider of the content at issue,” and that “a website may be immune from liability for some of the third-party content it publishes but be subject to liability for the content that it is responsible for as a creator or developer.”On appeal, Dirty World and Richie argued that the district court erred when it held that “a website owner who intentionally encourages illegal or actionable third-party postings to which he adds his own comments ratifying or adopting the posts becomes a ‘creator’ or ‘developer’ of that content and is not entitled to immunity.” The Sixth Circuit agreed that the district court’s definition of “development” was incorrect, and instead adopted the material contribution test from Roommates.com:<blockquote dir="ltr">Consistent with our sister circuits, we adopt the material contribution test to determine whether a website operator is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [allegedly tortious] information.”</blockquote>The court went on to note that the district court’s encouragement test “would inflate the meaning of ‘development’ to the point of eclipsing the immunity from publisher-liability that Congress established,” given that many websites actively encourage users to post particular types of content, some of which will be unwelcome to others.Applying the material contribution test, the court held that, “Richie and Dirty World cannot be found to have materially contributed to the defamatory content . . . simply because those posts were selected for publication, . . . [n]or can they be found to have materially contributed to the defamatory content through the decision not to remove the posts.” The court distinguished Roommates.com because “the website that Richie operated did not require users to post illegal or actionable content as a condition of use.” Finally, the court held that, although Richie was clearly an information content provider with respect to his own commentary that was added to the posts, that commentary “although absurd, did not materially contribute to the defamatory content” of the posts. Accordingly, Dirty World and Richie were entitled to immunity under Section 230.***Please look out for installment number three of this six-part series, where we will examine how the tide began to turn against expansive interpretations of Section 230, with courts becoming increasingly willing to reward plaintiffs’ efforts to find chinks in the safe harbor’s armor.