Court Denies Roommates.com USC 230 Safe Harbor Status

[mandy]

When you run a roommate-matching service, you need to be careful about what questions you ask, as Roommates.com has just learned the hard way. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday (PDF) that the service did not qualify for a Safe Harbor under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The case now goes back to a lower court, where Roommates.com could well be on the hook for violating the Fair Housing Act—all because of a couple questions.

The CDA contains a Safe Harbor provision that functions much like the one in the DMCA. In both cases, online service providers are not generally liable for the infringing or illicit content posted by their users, so long as the service providers are simply offering a set of tools. Once they get involved in shaping the content, though, they can lose this protection...

full article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...berth.html

[mandy]

Update:

A federal court in California has ruled against Roommate.com, stating the site violated federal and state housing laws with some of the services it provides. At issue is content posted not by the Web site's administrators, but by its users. The case creates a distinction between what sorts of user activity a Web site is and is not responsible for...

In a "friend of the court" brief submitted Monday to the U.S. Court of Appeals in California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued that "the ruling will inhibit technological developments because providers and users of interactive computer services will be discouraged from investing in creating important Internet features if they face the constant threat of litigation for customizing and facilitating access to third-party content."...

full article: http://ecommercetimes.com/story/PgJePPYV...ture.xhtml

[mandy]

A related article on recent court cases that have chipped away at USC 230 protection:

For more than a decade, Web site operators have enjoyed a broad legal shield against lawsuits filed over material posted by their users, which has let user-driven sites like YouTube and MySpace.com flourish.

But a pair of recent rulings by federal district judges have chipped away at that protective shield. If those decisions are upheld on appeal, and if more judges follow suit, Web site operators and Internet service providers may find themselves compelled to police what their users post--or face the unsettling prospect of being held liable for the contents...

full article: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9911501-7.html

[BellisimaJ.]

But a pair of recent rulings by federal district judges have chipped away at that protective shield. If those decisions are upheld on appeal, and if more judges follow suit, Web site operators and Internet service providers may find themselves compelled to police what their users post--or face the unsettling prospect of being held liable for the contents...

I would like to see that happen. I think that the cyber-stalking phenomena would be drastically reduced. Site owners would actually have to enforce some civility on their sites.......forums in particular.  8)