No, the website owner is not protected and is guilty. Bollaert argued that a special internet law (the CDA) shielded him because he was just providing a platform for other people's posts. The court disagreed, saying that protection is for neutral platforms, like a simple bulletin board. Bollaert wasn't neutral. By creating required fields that forced users to add victims' names, locations, and social media links, he was actively helping to develop the illegal and harmful content. This made him a 'content provider,' not just a service provider. The extortion charges were also valid. The threat was obvious: if you don't pay, your humiliating photos and information stay up for the world to see, causing you more shame. Even though some people had already seen the posts, victims were terrified of their family, friends, or bosses finding out, so it was still a 'secret' they were paying to protect.

Yes, Bollaert broke the law. He set up his websites in a way that made people post private information illegally, and then he charged money to take it down. This is illegal because he purposely got and used people's personal information without permission for unlawful reasons, like extortion and invading privacy. Bollaert can't claim protection under a law that usually shields website owners (the Communications Decency Act) because he actively helped create the harmful content by making users submit private information. The way Bollaert ran his websites was basically a threat - he was saying 'pay me or I'll keep showing your private photos and information to everyone.' This counts as extortion, even if he didn't say it directly. The private photos and information were still considered 'secrets' in legal terms, even though they were on the internet, because many people still hadn't seen them. Bollaert wasn't running a legitimate business - he didn't have the right to charge money to remove information that he had asked for and posted in the first place.

No, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not immunize the website operator. A website operator loses CDA immunity and becomes an "information content provider" when they are responsible, in part, for the creation or development of illegal content. Here, Bollaert did not merely act as a passive conduit for third-party content. By designing UGotPosted.com with required fields for victims' full names, locations, and Facebook links, he materially contributed to the illegality of the content—the invasion of the victims' privacy. Unlike the neutral tools provided in cases like *Carafano*, Bollaert's website was specifically designed to solicit unlawful information, making him a developer of the content and ineligible for CDA immunity. Furthermore, the extortion convictions were valid because the threat was the implied continued public exposure of the victims' private images and information, causing disgrace. The victims' consent to pay was induced by the fear of continued humiliation, and the fact that the information was already public to some did not eliminate its nature as a "secret" to others, such as family and employers, whose discovery the victims feared.

Yes. Bollaert's actions of designing websites that facilitated the posting of private information and charging for its removal constituted unauthorized use of personal identifying information because he willfully obtained and used that information for unlawful purposes, specifically for extortion and invasion of privacy. The evidence is sufficient to support Bollaert's convictions for unlawful use of personal identifying information as well as extortion. Bollaert's design and operation of UGotPosted.com, which required users to provide content that violated others' privacy, does not entitle him to statutory immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The jury's rejection of CDA immunity is supported by evidence that Bollaert developed, at least in part, the offensive content on his website by requiring users to input private and personal information as a condition of posting the victims' pictures, making him an information content provider within the meaning of the CDA. Bollaert's joint operation of the two websites, as well as his communications to the victims, was a means to obtain their money by wrongful use of fear, namely the threat to impute disgrace to them by continued display of their private nude images and further humiliation, embarrassment, and damage to their reputation, unless they paid. The victims' photographs and personal identifying information constituted a secret within the meaning of the crime of extortion, notwithstanding its posting on the Internet and viewing by some individuals. Bollaert was not engaged in a legitimate business practice, as he did not have a lawful right to collect a fee to remove the victims' personal information that he had solicited and developed.

People v. Bollaert

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot