Doe v. MySpace, Inc.
36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1737, 528 F.3d 413, 45 Communications Reg. (P&F) 321 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Communications Decency Act (CDA) Section 230(c)(1) provides broad immunity to interactive computer service providers from claims seeking to hold them liable as a publisher or speaker for information provided by third-party users, even when claims are framed as a failure to implement safety measures.
Facts:
- MySpace.com is a web-based social network platform that allows members to create profiles, share information, and communicate with other users.
- MySpace.com requires users to represent they are at least fourteen years old, and automatically sets profiles for 14- and 15-year-olds to 'private' by default.
- MySpace.com cautions members against posting personal information and encourages them to report inappropriate material.
- In the summer of 2005, Julie Doe, then 13, misrepresented her age as 18 to create a public profile on MySpace.com, circumventing safety features.
- In April 2006, 19-year-old Pete Solis initiated contact with Julie Doe (then 14) through MySpace.com.
- Julie Doe provided her telephone number to Solis, and they communicated offline on several occasions before meeting in person in May 2006, where Solis sexually assaulted Julie Doe.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Doe (individually and as next friend of Julie Doe) sued MySpace, Inc., its parent company News Corporation, and Pete Solis in a Texas state court.
- The Does' original petition asserted claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and gross negligence against MySpace, and claims for sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Solis.
- MySpace answered the petition and filed special exceptions, asserting that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and Texas common law barred the Does’ claims.
- The Does amended their petition, to which MySpace again specially excepted.
- The Does filed a motion for nonsuit, which the Texas state court granted, dismissing the case without prejudice.
- The Does then refiled their claims against MySpace (but not Solis) in New York state court.
- MySpace immediately removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and moved to transfer venue and to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The New York district court granted MySpace’s motion to transfer venue to the Western District of Texas, but declined to rule on the motion to dismiss.
- The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas construed MySpace’s motion to dismiss as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings and held oral argument.
- The Texas district court dismissed with prejudice the Does’ claims for negligence and gross negligence, finding them barred by the CDA and Texas common law; the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were voluntarily withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.
- The Does appealed the district court’s dismissal of their claims for negligence and gross negligence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 the Communications Decency Act Section 230(c)(1) immunize an interactive computer service provider from claims of negligence and gross negligence based on its alleged failure to implement safety measures to prevent a minor user from communicating with and being sexually assaulted by another user, where the communications were initiated and content provided by the users themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Edith Brown Clement
Yes, the Communications Decency Act Section 230(c)(1) immunizes MySpace from claims of negligence and gross negligence because the Does' claims, though framed as a failure to implement safety measures, fundamentally seek to hold MySpace liable for its role as a publisher of third-party content. Section 230(c)(1) broadly states 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 found the Does' pleading to be "artful," concluding that the true basis of their claims was MySpace's publication of communications between Julie Doe and Pete Solis, which ultimately led to their meeting and the assault. The court cited precedent from other circuits, such as Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. and Zeran v. American Online, Inc., which establish that CDA immunity applies broadly, even when providers are notified of objectionable content or when claims are framed as a failure-to-protect. The court emphasized Congress's policy choice not to deter harmful online speech by imposing tort liability on intermediaries. The Does' argument that MySpace partially created the content was deemed waived because it was not raised in the district court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly bolsters the broad immunity granted to interactive computer service providers under CDA § 230(c)(1), reinforcing that claims, even those framed as a failure to protect users or implement safety measures, will be barred if they inherently seek to hold the platform liable for content created by third parties. It underscores the difficulty of circumventing CDA immunity for platform negligence related to user-generated content. The ruling provides further protection for online platforms, potentially limiting their incentive to proactively develop and implement advanced safety technologies, as liability for harmful user interactions remains primarily with the content creators themselves.
