Doe v. MySpace, Inc.
474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunizes interactive computer services from liability for claims that seek to treat them as the publisher or speaker of information provided by third-party users. Additionally, under Texas common law, a website operator generally has no duty to protect its users from the criminal acts of other users, as no special relationship exists and the concept of premises liability does not extend to a virtual platform.
Facts:
- When she was 13 years old, Julie Doe created a profile on MySpace.com, a social networking website.
- In her profile, Julie Doe falsely represented that she was 18 years old.
- Pete Solis, a 19-year-old, initiated contact with Julie Doe, then 14, through MySpace.com.
- Julie Doe provided Pete Solis with her telephone number, and they communicated over the phone for several weeks.
- Julie Doe and Pete Solis arranged to meet for an in-person date.
- During their meeting, Pete Solis sexually assaulted Julie Doe.
- Jane Doe, Julie's mother, reported the sexual assault to the police.
- Pete Solis was subsequently arrested and indicted for Sexual Assault.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs (Jane and Julie Doe) filed a lawsuit against MySpace, Inc. and News Corporation in a state trial court in Bronx County, New York.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (a federal trial court).
- The Southern District of New York transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims asserted by the plaintiffs.
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 negligence claims arising from a third-party user's criminal act that was facilitated by communications on the service's platform?
Opinions:
Majority - Sparks, District Judge
Yes. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an interactive computer service from such claims. Plaintiffs' claims, regardless of how they are pleaded, seek to treat MySpace as the publisher of information provided by third-party users, namely the communications between Julie Doe and Pete Solis. The CDA provides broad immunity for interactive computer services to prevent a chilling effect on online speech, and this immunity is not limited to defamation but extends to tort claims like negligence. Even without CDA immunity, the negligence claims fail under Texas law because MySpace has no common law duty to protect one user from the criminal acts of another. No special relationship exists between a website and its users, and the court declined to extend premises liability principles to a 'virtual premises,' especially a free service. To impose such a duty would be contrary to public policy and the intent of Congress, and it would effectively shut down the service.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the broad scope of immunity granted to internet service providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The court's decision clarifies that plaintiffs cannot circumvent CDA immunity by artfully pleading claims as 'negligent failure to implement safety measures' when the underlying harm flows directly from content published by third parties. It establishes that the immunity extends beyond defamation to cover general tort claims, reinforcing the high bar for holding platforms liable for user interactions. Furthermore, the court's refusal to extend common law duties of care, such as premises liability, to the 'virtual' context set a significant precedent for how tort law applies to online platforms.
