Zeran v. America Online, Inc.
129 F.3d 327 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants broad immunity to interactive computer service providers from liability for defamatory content posted by third-party users, precluding any cause of action that would treat the provider as the 'publisher or speaker' of that information, even if the provider has notice of its defamatory nature.
Facts:
- On April 25, 1995, an unidentified person posted a message on an America Online (AOL) bulletin board advertising offensive t-shirts related to the Oklahoma City bombing.
- The posting instructed interested persons to call “Ken” at Kenneth Zeran’s home phone number in Seattle.
- As a result, Zeran began receiving a high volume of angry, derogatory, and threatening phone calls.
- That same day, Zeran called an AOL representative, informed them of the situation, and was told the posting would be removed, but AOL would not post a retraction.
- Over the next four days, the unidentified party posted several more messages on AOL advertising other offensive items and again directing calls to Zeran's number.
- Zeran called AOL repeatedly during this period as the abusive calls he received intensified, eventually reaching a rate of one every two minutes.
- On May 1, 1995, an Oklahoma City radio station announcer for KRXO read the contents of the first AOL posting on the air and urged listeners to call Zeran's number.
- Following the radio broadcast, Zeran was inundated with death threats, which prompted local police to surveil his home for his safety.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Zeran sued radio station KRXO in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (a federal trial court).
- Zeran then filed a separate suit against America Online, Inc. (AOL) in the same court.
- Zeran's suit against AOL was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- AOL moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that 47 U.S.C. § 230 provided it with immunity.
- The district court granted AOL's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- Zeran (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with AOL as the appellee.
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 for defamatory content posted by a third party, even after the provider receives notice of the defamatory nature of the content?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wilkinson
Yes. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer service providers from liability for information originating with a third-party user. The court rejected Zeran's argument that Section 230 only immunizes providers from 'publisher' liability while leaving 'distributor' liability intact. The court reasoned that distributor liability is merely a subset of publisher liability, and Congress's use of the term 'publisher' encompasses both. To hold otherwise and impose liability upon notice would force service providers to investigate and make editorial judgments on countless user complaints, which is an impossible burden. This would create a chilling effect on speech, as providers would have an incentive to remove any challenged material to avoid liability, contrary to Congress's intent to foster a robust internet and encourage voluntary self-regulation without fear of litigation.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established an expansive interpretation of Section 230 immunity, effectively shielding internet platforms from most liability for user-generated content. By holding that notice of defamatory content does not create liability, the court provided the legal certainty that allowed social media, forums, and other interactive services to flourish without being crippled by lawsuits over third-party posts. The ruling cemented the legal distinction between tech platforms as intermediaries and traditional media as publishers, profoundly shaping the business models and moderation policies of the modern internet. It remains a foundational and highly influential case in cyberlaw, defining the legal responsibilities of online platforms for over two decades.
Unlock the full brief for Zeran v. America Online, Inc.