Jenna Goddard v. Google 2008 WL 524590
Facts – Goddard alleges that she and a class of individuals were injured as a result of clicking web-based advertisements created by fraudulent providers of services for mobile devices “MSSPsâ€. These MSSPs sell ring tones, weather alerts etc. Goddard alleges that the unverifiable nature of the charges for such services has resulted in high incidences of fraudulent activity in the mobile phone industry. Goddard further alleges that Google has a content policy to exclude the advertisements from fraudulent MSSPs, but that Google refuses to implement it. Goddard brought claims for money laundering, breach of content-policy, negligent protection of consumers, and aiding and abetting and other statutory and common law violations. Goddard argued that 230 of the CDA was not applicable because Google accepted tainted funds from the MSSPs. Google asserted that it was immune under the CDA.
Holding – The court held that the actions were barred by section 230 of the CDA and the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Reasoning – Section 230 of the CDA was passed in response to concerns that providers of internet-based services could be held liable for unlawful content provided by third parties. This is generally a broad immunity. The immunity applies if the information was not published or if the service provider is not an information content provider. For 230 to apply, the website must directly participate in developing the illegality at issue. Artful pleading, in which plaintiffs attempt to re-structure claims under the CDA and find immunity, were rejected by the court. As to the breach of contract and negligence claims, the court held that Google cannot be held liable for failing to remove advertisements that did not comply with its policy and failing to enforce it because they are barred by Section 230(c) (1) of the CDA. A finding otherwise would create liability for third party content and contradict Section 230. Under Section 230(c)(2), an ISP can establish standards of decency without risking liability. The court held that Google’s content policy which states that MSSPs must provide pricing and cancellation information regarding services relates to business norms of fair play and transparency and is beyond the scope of Section 230(c)(2). Finally, as to the aiding and abetting claims, the court found that aiding and abetting is a claim which stems from publication of information created by a third party, and is thus barred under Section 230 of the CDA.
Facts – Goddard alleges that she and a class of individuals were injured as a result of clicking web-based advertisements created by fraudulent providers of services for mobile devices “MSSPsâ€. These MSSPs sell ring tones, weather alerts etc. Goddard alleges that the unverifiable nature of the charges for such services has resulted in high incidences of fraudulent activity in the mobile phone industry. Goddard further alleges that Google has a content policy to exclude the advertisements from fraudulent MSSPs, but that Google refuses to implement it. Goddard brought claims for money laundering, breach of content-policy, negligent protection of consumers, and aiding and abetting and other statutory and common law violations. Goddard argued that 230 of the CDA was not applicable because Google accepted tainted funds from the MSSPs. Google asserted that it was immune under the CDA.
Holding – The court held that the actions were barred by section 230 of the CDA and the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Reasoning – Section 230 of the CDA was passed in response to concerns that providers of internet-based services could be held liable for unlawful content provided by third parties. This is generally a broad immunity. The immunity applies if the information was not published or if the service provider is not an information content provider. For 230 to apply, the website must directly participate in developing the illegality at issue. Artful pleading, in which plaintiffs attempt to re-structure claims under the CDA and find immunity, were rejected by the court. As to the breach of contract and negligence claims, the court held that Google cannot be held liable for failing to remove advertisements that did not comply with its policy and failing to enforce it because they are barred by Section 230(c) (1) of the CDA. A finding otherwise would create liability for third party content and contradict Section 230. Under Section 230(c)(2), an ISP can establish standards of decency without risking liability. The court held that Google’s content policy which states that MSSPs must provide pricing and cancellation information regarding services relates to business norms of fair play and transparency and is beyond the scope of Section 230(c)(2). Finally, as to the aiding and abetting claims, the court found that aiding and abetting is a claim which stems from publication of information created by a third party, and is thus barred under Section 230 of the CDA.