CDA protects MySpace

In 2007, MySpace was sued by the parents of a Texas girl who was assaulted by an adult after they exchanged information over the MySpace social networking site. The plaintiffs claimed that MySpace's failure to implement features that would have worked to prevent the assault, amounted to negligence, gross negligence, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. MySpace moved to dismiss the case arguing that they were immune from the suit under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims did not meet the standards set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas agreed with MySpace and dismissed the suit.

This case is further affirmation for the Internet industry that the CDA insulates it from liability from the actions of its users. The Texas Court's decision provides a veritable treasure trove of examples of how and why Congress determined that Internet Communications Providers should be shielded from liability for their customer's use of their services. In particular, the Court acknowledges that the CDA shield is not limited to cases of defamation and libel, but extents to other causes of action, such as negligence and gross negligence.

The Court stated:

"Nothing on the face of the statute supports Plaintiffs' narrow interpretation that the CDA's immunity applies only to cases involving defamation and defamation-related claims."

further

"If MySpace had not published communications between Julie Doe and Solis, including personal contact information, Plaintiffs assert they never would have met and the sexual assault never would have occurred. No matter how artfully Plaintiffs seek to plead their claims, the Court views Plaintiffs' claims as directed toward MySpace in its publishing, editorial and/or screening capacities. Therefore, in accordance with the cases cited above, Defendants are entitled to immunity under the CDA."

This case is important to web hosts who seem to face almost unending claims that their customers are engaged in libel, defamation, negligence or other torts, and that their failure to take action, or failure to implement measures to screen this information, makes them liable for their customer's acts. Because this decision includes such a detailed history of the CDA and decisions interpreting it, the Court has given web hosts a powerful tool to cite when those nasty letters from attorneys arrive. Citing this case may prevent litigation from occurring in the first place.