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: 

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

Censorship powers, data retention, and vague hacking crimes: Pakistan's terrible cybercrime bill has it all:

Nov 25 @ 5:11pm

While Bangladesh blocks social messaging apps, locals are turning to Tor and Twitter:

Nov 25 @ 3:50pm

You've heard recent news about Securus, the prison phone service. It's also the proud owner of a very stupid patent.

Nov 25 @ 3:09pm
JavaScript license information