Lexplug logoLexplug

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
570 F.3d 1096 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an interactive computer service provider from tort liability for failing to remove third-party content, as this is a publisher's function. However, Section 230(c)(1) does not immunize a provider from a promissory estoppel claim if it makes a specific, enforceable promise to remove such content, as liability then arises from breach of contract, not from its status as a publisher.


Facts:

  • In late 2004, after Cecilia Barnes ended a relationship, her ex-boyfriend posted unauthorized profiles of her on Yahoo!'s website.
  • The profiles contained nude photographs of Barnes, solicited sexual intercourse, and included her work address, email, and phone number.
  • As a result, unknown men began contacting Barnes at her workplace with emails, phone calls, and personal visits, expecting sex.
  • Barnes mailed Yahoo a copy of her ID and a signed statement requesting the profiles' removal.
  • After a month with no response, Barnes mailed Yahoo again; the following month, she sent two more mailings.
  • A Yahoo Director of Communications, Ms. Osako, called Barnes and told her that she would “personally walk the statements over to the division responsible for stopping unauthorized profiles and they would take care of it.”
  • Barnes relied on this statement and took no further action regarding the profiles.
  • The profiles remained on Yahoo's website for approximately two more months.

Procedural Posture:

  • Cecilia Barnes filed a complaint against Yahoo!, Inc. in an Oregon state court.
  • Yahoo removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
  • Yahoo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it was immune from liability under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act.
  • The district court granted Yahoo's motion to dismiss, finding that the Act protected Yahoo from liability.
  • Barnes (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Yahoo as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act shield an interactive computer service provider from liability for state law claims of negligent undertaking and promissory estoppel arising from its failure to remove offensive third-party content after specifically promising to do so?


Opinions:

Majority - O’Scannlain, Circuit Judge

Yes, as to the negligent undertaking claim; No, as to the promissory estoppel claim. Section 230(c)(1) bars claims that treat an interactive computer service provider as a 'publisher or speaker' of third-party content. A negligent undertaking claim is barred because it seeks to impose liability on Yahoo for its quintessential publishing conduct—the failure to remove content. However, a promissory estoppel claim is not barred because it treats Yahoo not as a publisher, but as a promisor who breached an enforceable promise. The legal duty in a contract claim arises from the promise itself, which is a voluntary undertaking of an obligation that is distinct from the general duties of a publisher and effectively waives the provider's statutory immunity for that specific commitment.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a critical limitation on the broad immunity granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. While affirming that tort claims based on a provider's editorial functions (like removing content) are barred, the court carves out a significant exception for contract-based claims. By allowing a promissory estoppel claim to proceed, the ruling puts interactive computer service providers on notice that specific, express promises made to users to remove content can create legally enforceable obligations, thereby waiving Section 230 immunity for that particular promise. This precedent creates a new avenue of liability for providers and requires them to manage user communications and content moderation promises with much greater care.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (2009) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.