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

How China is strong-arming coders to abandon their open source projects: https://eff.org/r.wso1

Aug 28 @ 4:20pm

Introducing a powerful new tool to help stop the California virtual currency license: https://eff.org/r.5qg6

Aug 28 @ 2:14pm

HTTPS encryption may have gotten the better of Russian censors trying to block a Wikipedia article: https://eff.org/r.vk6f

Aug 28 @ 1:55pm
JavaScript license information