Blumenthal v. Drudge
992 F. Supp. 44 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes providers of interactive computer services from liability for defamatory content created by a third-party information content provider, even when the service provider contracts with, pays for, and promotes that content.
Facts:
- Matt Drudge, a California resident, created and published an online gossip column, the 'Drudge Report,' from his home.
- The Drudge Report was available on a public website and was also distributed via an email subscription list.
- In mid-1997, Drudge entered into a one-year licensing agreement with America Online, Inc. (AOL) to make the Drudge Report available to AOL's subscribers for a flat monthly payment of $3,000.
- Under the agreement, Drudge was solely responsible for creating and editing the content, though AOL retained the right to remove content that violated its terms of service.
- AOL issued a press release titled 'AOL Hires Runaway Gossip Success Matt Drudge,' promoting his 'instant gossip and news breaks' to its members.
- On August 10, 1997, Drudge published an edition of the Drudge Report, which AOL then posted, alleging that Sidney Blumenthal, a new White House aide, had a history of spousal abuse.
- Sidney Blumenthal and his wife, Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, were residents of the District of Columbia and worked in the White House.
- After being contacted by the Blumenthals' attorney, Drudge retracted the story and issued a public apology.
Procedural Posture:
- Sidney and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal filed a complaint for defamation against defendants Matt Drudge and America Online, Inc. (AOL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Defendant AOL filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- Defendant Drudge filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Central District of California.
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 of the Communications Decency Act immunize an interactive computer service provider from liability as a publisher for defamatory statements made by a third-party content provider it contracted with and promoted on its service?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman
Yes. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an interactive computer service provider from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information created by a third party. The court granted AOL's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plain language of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) provides broad immunity to interactive computer services like AOL for content created by information content providers like Drudge. The court found that despite AOL's contract with Drudge, its monthly payments to him, and its active promotion of his column, AOL did not participate in the 'creation or development' of the defamatory content. Citing the Fourth Circuit's decision in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the court reasoned that Congress made a specific policy choice to shield service providers from tort liability to encourage the growth of the internet and incentivize self-regulation of offensive material without the fear that such editorial actions would create publisher liability. The court noted that while it might have decided differently 'if writing on a clean slate,' the clear statutory mandate required granting immunity to AOL. The court also denied Drudge's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It held that Drudge's contacts with the District of Columbia were sufficient to establish a 'persistent course of conduct' under the D.C. long-arm statute and satisfy due process. The court found jurisdiction was proper based on the combined effect of Drudge's interactive website which allowed for communication with D.C. residents, the D.C.-focused political subject matter of his reporting, his solicitation of contributions from D.C. residents, and his other non-internet contacts with the District, including a promotional interview and sourcing.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in internet law that firmly established the broad scope of immunity provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It confirmed that the statutory shield protects interactive computer service providers even when they take an active role in selecting, paying, and promoting third-party content, so long as they are not involved in its creation or development. This ruling significantly lowered the legal risk for online platforms, paving the way for the growth of user-generated content and social media. The decision's personal jurisdiction analysis also provided an early and influential framework for how courts could assess a defendant's internet-based contacts with a forum.
