The case could potentially have been disastrous for webmasters and newsletter publishers who distribute messages through the Internet if the high court were to review the appeal from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Justices declined the case.

The civil case involved Robert Smith, who was hired by North Carolina attorney, Ellen Batzel, to paint her home. Believing Batzel's artwork was Nazi-looted art, Smith sent an email citing Batzel's home address to Tom Cremers, who operates an Amsterdam-based museum security and art theft Web site and listserv. Cremers then lightly edited the message and published it on the Web site and listserve.

Batzel sued Cremers and Smith for defamation in US District Court. On appeal, the 9th Circuit ruled Cremers was immune from liability because he was a provider of interactive computer services under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1995, which states that "[N]o 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."

Batzel pleaded with the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing the Internet allows a greater chance for harm from publishing defamatory information. Batzel argued Cremers should not be entitled to immunity under the Act because he actively selected and developed the information, therefore making him an information content provider.