Zeran Vs. Aol.docx

Kenneth   M.   Zeran   v.   America   Online,   Inc.;   U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia, 958 F.Supp. (1997); U.S Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, CA­96­1564­A, 129 F.2d 327   (1997);   U.S.   Supreme   Court,   Cert.   Pet.   97­1488, denied. Nature of the Case.   Plaintiff, Ken Zeran, seeks to have AOL held liable for the defamatory things said about him by an AOL subscriber.  He lost in the trial court, as well as in the   appeals   court,   and   the   Supreme   Court   denied   his request to hear his appeal. Plaintiff.     Kenneth Zeran was the victim of a slanderous internet hoax.   Attorney, Leo Kayser, New York, NY, 212­ 391­4962. Defendant.   America Online is an online service company. Attorneys, Patrick Joseph Carome, John Payton, and Scinir Jain, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, 202­663­ 6000. Brief   Summary:  After   the   Oklahoma   City   bombing   in 1995, an unknown America Online (AOL) (defendant) user posted   t­shirts   containing   tasteless   slogans   regarding   the bombings for sale on the Internet. The posting listed Zeran’s (plaintiff)  phone number as  the way  to order the t­shirts. Zeran   had   nothing   to   do   with   the   posting,   but   began   to receive   harassing   phone   calls.   Zeran   sued   AOL   for defamation. Facts.   Six days after the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred   P.   Murrah   building   in   1995,   the   phone   number   of Kenneth   Zeran,   the   plaintiff,   was   attached   to   a   message advertising   merchandise   that   glorified   the   bombing   in various ways that was posted on America Online, or AOL. Ken   Zeran   was   defamed   by   an   unknown   AOL   subscriber who made several posting on AOL advertising that Zeran had for sale certain tasteless t­shirts regarding the bombing of   the   Alfred   P.   Murrah   Building   in   Oklahoma   City,   and which listed the telephone number from which he ran his home   based   business.     He   was   inundated   with   telephone complaints and death threats. Zeran began to receive angry calls about the advertisement, which he did not post, and he contacted   AOL   to   have   the   advertisement   taken   down, which it was. However, the advertisement was repeatedly reposted by an anonymous source, each time putting Zeran’s home phone number as the contact information for buying the merchandise advertised. Zeran eventually contacted the FBI, which had to place his house under surveillance for a short while due to the huge amount of calls and threats Zeran was receiving, which at the   height   of   the   issue   went   up   to   one   call   every   two minutes.  AOL removed the postings and cancelled the account of the unknown   poster,   but   declined   to   post   a   retraction. Additional   notices   continued   to   appear   for   several   weeks despite Zeran’s request that AOL block such notices.

A   few   months   later,   Zeran   filed   suit   against   AOL   for defamation claiming that it had been negligent in allowing the notices to remain and to reappear on its bulletin board. In court, Zeran alleged that AOL had not acted fast enough to   take   down   the   messages,   which   were   “fraudulent   in nature” and which defamed him. AOL’s case hinged on the Communications   Decency   Act   (CDA),   specifically   Section 230, which states that operators of internet services can’t be labeled   as  publishers   of  their  content.  However,   the  CDA went   into   law   several   months   after   the   messages   with Zeran’s phone number were published online, something the Lower Court had to debate allowing. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria dismissed the complaint. It ruled in favor of AOL, saying that the CDA would be allowed to be applied retroactively,   and   therefore   ruled   against   Zeran’s defamation claim. Zeran appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision.  Zeran   appealed   to   the   Supreme   Court,   which   denied   his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Issues.   The case presents the issue of whether an online service, website, or other interactive computer service, can be held liable for defamation made by third parties, where the defamed party has been injured by defamatory speech made   by   persons   who   post   in   an   interactive   computer service.  The case presents the issue of whether 47 U.S.C. § 230   immunizes   interactive   computer   services   from   such claims. Holding.  Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that 47 U.S.C. 230, which provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a   publisher   or   speaker   of   any   information   provided   by another information content provider" immunizes AOL and any   interactive   computer   service   from   claims   based   on information posted by a third party.  Court lawsuits seeking to   hold   a   service   provider   liable   for   its   exercise   of   a publisher's traditional editorial functions ­­ such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content ­­ are barred.   The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 18, 1998. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the case on the ground that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("the CDA"),   which   addresses   issues   concerning   protection   for private blocking and screening of offensive material, confers immunity on Internet providers with respect to information placed   on   their   services   by   third   parties   and   specifically provides   that   "no   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." The court thus held that § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make

service  providers  liable  for information  originating  with a third­party user of the service. The court discerned that Congress’ purpose in creating this immunity was two­fold. First, Congress sought to avoid the threat that tort­based lawsuits "pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium." The court noted that   the   amount   of   information   communicated   via interactive computer services was staggering and that the specter of tort liability for items that might be posted on a provider’s system would have an obvious chilling effect on speech.   Absent   the   immunity,   such   providers   would arguably be liable for any message posted on their service and might well decide to severely restrict the number and/or type of messages posted. Second, Congress sought to remove disincentives which included the liability that an interactive computer service provider might have under state law if it undertook   to   do   content   screening   and   editing   and   a defamatory statement by a third  party escaped  its notice. The   court’s   concern   was   not   hypothetical:   under   such circumstances, Prodigy had been held to have published a defamatory statement two years earlier. Stratton­Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Service Co., 1995 WL 805178 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995). Congress passed § 230 to prevent the imposition of liability out   of   fear   that   such   rulings   would   induce   interactive computer   companies   to   refrain   from   editing   or   blocking content. The   court   premised   its   decision   on   the   Commerce   and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It declined to apply   an   approach   to   statutory   interpretation   that   favors retention   of   state   common   law   unless   Congress   directly speaks   to   the   issue   in   part   because   that   approach   would significantly   lessen   Congress’   power,   derived   from   the Commerce   Clause,   to   act   in   a   field   with   national   or international implications. Thus, while the CDA permits the enforcement of any state law consistent with § 230, it also forbids   any   state   law   cause   of   action   or   liability   that   is inconsistent   with   §   230.   In   addition,   the   court   held   that Zeran’s law suit, as it was based on state law inconsistent with   the   purposes   of   §   230   ­­   e.g.,   to   promote   unfettered speech on the Internet ­­ was preempted by the CDA. The doctrine of preemption, derived from the Supremacy Clause of   the   U.S.   Constitution,   provides   that   federal   law   is supreme when it conflicts with state law. Where Congress ordains, as it did in the CDA, that its laws are to regulate an   area   of   commerce,   state   laws   regulating   that   area   of commerce must fall. (In a similar case, Blumenthal v. Drudge and America On­ Line, Inc., 992 F.Supp. 44 (D. D.C.), the court interpreted the immunity conferred by § 230(c)(1) even more broadly. In Blumenthal,   Sidney   Blumenthal,   Assistant   to   President Clinton, and his wife Jacqueline Blumenthal, Director of the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships, sued Matt Drudge whose Drudge Report was sent by Drudge’s co­ defendant, America On­Line, to all of its subscribers. The suit   alleged,   among   other   things,   that   Drudge   and   AOL defamed the Blumenthals by stating that Mr. Blumenthal

had   a   history   of   spousal   abuse.   In   particular,   AOL   was charged   with   publishing   this   information   with   reckless disregard for its truth.  The   United   States   District   Court   for   the   District   of Columbia granted summary judgment for AOL on the basis of § 230 (c)(1) immunity. The facts that 1) Drudge was not an anonymous person but rather an individual with whom AOL   contracted   to   provide   his   report   and   whom   AOL promoted to its subscribers and potential subscribers as a reason   to   subscribe   to   AOL,   2)   Drudge’s   sole   income   was derived from AOL, and 3) AOL’s contract with Drudge gave AOL the right to remove, or direct Drudge to remove, any content that violated  AOL’s  standard  Terms  of Service  or that adversely affected operations of the AOL network were unavailing in light of Congress’ clear intent. Although the court noted that, if it were writing on a clean slate, it would side with the Blumenthals, it nevertheless concluded that § 230(c)(1) granted AOL immunity.

Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir.) (1997) In   Zeran   v.   America   Online,   Inc.,   129   F.3d   327   (4th   Cir. 1997),  the  Fourth  Circuit   Court  of  Appeals  reasoned   that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides broad immunity to Internet service providers (ISPs) from online libel suits. The appeals court determined that   the   plain   language   of   the   statute   mandated   such   a result as the law furthered Congress’s purpose in protecting free speech on the Internet. The case began when an unknown individual posted on an America Online (AOL) bulletin board an advertisement for “Naughty   Oklahoma   T­Shirts,”   which   contained   tasteless, offensive slogans related to the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The   message   instructed   people   to   call   “Ken”   in   Seattle, Washington, and included the telephone number of Seattle retailer Kenneth Zeran. Zeran,   who   was   not   involved   with   the   T­shirts,   began receiving a deluge of harassing phone calls, including death threats.  He  requested  that  AOL  remove   the  message  and issue  a   retraction.   AOL  eventually   removed   the  offending message   but   did   not   issue   a   retraction.   Zeran   then   sued AOL in federal court. A   federal   district   court   dismissed   the   suit,   relying   on Section   230,   which   provides   in   its   pertinent   part:   “No 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.”   The provision   means   that   ISPs   like   AOL   are   not   legally responsible   for   the   defamatory   postings   of   third   parties. Congress   reasoned   that   imposing   such   potential   liability would chill free speech on the Internet. On   appeal,   the   Fourth   Circuit   affirmed   the   district   court ruling based on a similar understanding of Section 230 and congressional   intent;   the   court   found   that   Congress recognized   the   competing   concerns   and   chose   to   provide broad immunity to ISPs to ensure the free flow of speech online.   The   appeals   court   also   rejected   Zeran’s   argument that  AOL  should   be  treated   more  as  a  distributor  (like  a traditional   bookstore)   than   as   a   publisher.   “In   this   case, AOL   is   legally   considered   to   be   a   publisher,”   the   Fourth Circuit   wrote.   “The   simple   fact   of   notice   surely   cannot transform one from an original publisher to a distributor in the eyes of the law.” Zeran petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined review on June 22, 1998. Many   other   federal   courts   have   followed   Zeran’s interpretation  of  Section  230  to dismiss   online  libel  suits. Examples include Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003), Green v. America Online (3d Cir., 2003), and Blumenthal v. Drudge (D.D.C. 1998).