Douglas Kimzey v. Yelp!
44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2353, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16665, 836 F.3d 1263 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An interactive computer service provider does not become an 'information content provider' and thus does not lose Section 230 immunity by providing neutral tools, such as a star-rating system, that organize or aggregate third-party content, nor by disseminating that user-generated content on other platforms.
Facts:
- Douglas Kimzey owns a locksmith business, Redmond Locksmith.
- In September 2011, a Yelp user identified as 'Sarah K' posted a negative review of Kimzey's business, assigning it a one-star rating.
- Approximately one year later, a comment appeared under the review from 'D K. Of Redmond Mobile Locksmith,' claiming the review was fraudulent.
- Following this comment, Sarah K updated her review to reaffirm its authenticity, stating she had a receipt and that the business was harassing her.
- Kimzey alleged that Yelp was responsible for the review's content.
- Kimzey claimed Yelp 'developed' the content by creating its proprietary star-rating system and by disseminating the review as a 'promotion' on Google’s search engine.
Procedural Posture:
- Douglas Kimzey filed a pro se complaint against Yelp, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- Yelp filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- The district court granted Yelp's motion to dismiss, finding that Section 230 immunized Yelp from the entire lawsuit.
- Kimzey, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 an interactive computer service provider become an 'information content provider,' thereby losing Section 230 immunity, by creating a star-rating system for user reviews or by disseminating user-generated content on other platforms like search engines?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeown
No. An interactive computer service provider does not become a content creator responsible for user-generated information simply by providing a system to rate that information or by disseminating it. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunizes Yelp from liability because its star-rating system is a neutral tool that merely aggregates user inputs and does not materially contribute to the creation or development of the underlying user review. The court reasoned that a website must do more than simply edit or select material for publication to be considered a developer of content. The star-rating system, much like the classification tools in Carafano, does not enhance the defamatory sting of a user's message but merely represents user-generated data. Furthermore, disseminating third-party content on another platform, such as Google, does not transform the service provider into the content's creator, as the origin of the content remains with the third-party user.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the broad scope of immunity provided by CDA Section 230 for interactive computer services. It clarifies that merely providing neutral, organizational tools for user content, such as a rating system, does not constitute 'creation or development' that would strip a provider of this immunity. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to circumvent Section 230 through 'creative pleading' that attempts to characterize a website's editorial or functional features as content creation. This precedent solidifies the principle that a provider must make a 'material contribution' to the illegality of the content itself, not just facilitate its publication, to lose CDA protection.
