CDA230

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510 (Cal. S.C. 2006)

Type of online publisher: 
Defendant as an individual
Publisher's Role in Third Party Content: 
Reposted a defamatory article written by a third party
CDA § 230 applicable?: 
Yes. Since the defendant was a “user of an interactive computer service” and did not produce the content herself, she was protected by CDA 230.

The defendant, who ran an online discussion group around women's health, posted some third-party content that attacked the plaintiffs, two doctors critical of alternative medicines. The court held that CDA 230 applies to individuals, and thus the defendant was protected since she didn't create the content. Moreover, the court rejected plaintiffs' arguments that there was a relevant distinction between publishers and distributors or between passive and active users because those distinctions had no basis in the statute.

EFF Case Page: 
Court Opinion Document: 
Jurisdiction: 
Issue: 

Stay in Touch

NSA Spying

EFF is leading the fight against the NSA's illegal mass surveillance program. Learn more about what the program is, how it works, and what you can do.

Follow EFF

Tomorrow at @sfiaf in San Francisco, join EFF for "Edward Snowden Revelations and the Public Right to Know." https://eff.org/r.v9n2

May 29 @ 4:33pm

EFF supporters get 20% off registration for @ISSALA's Information Security #Summit7 next week: https://eff.org/r.s2qt

May 29 @ 1:36pm

Higher max sentences for "material support" won't prevent terrorism—but will chill First Amendment rights. https://eff.org/r.x49r

May 29 @ 1:19pm
JavaScript license information