Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.
| Industry | Internet services |
|---|---|
| Founded | March 1, 1994 |
| Headquarters | Sunnyvale, California , United States |
| Products | Web portal, search engine, email, news, finance, and other online services |
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (570 F.3d 1096, 9th Cir. 2009) is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which determined that under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), Yahoo!, Inc., as an Internet service provider, cannot be held responsible for not removing objectionable material posted by third parties on its platform. The plaintiff, Cecilia Barnes, alleged that Yahoo! failed to fulfill its commitments to take down offensive content created by another user, including a profile containing nude images of her and her personal contact information. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon had previously dismissed her lawsuit.
History
Following the end of her relationship in 2004, Cecilia Barnes experienced harassment from her former boyfriend, who fabricated several unauthorized Yahoo! profiles impersonating her. These profiles featured nude photographs taken without her permission and included her actual contact details, accompanied by solicitations for sexual encounters. Additionally, he posed as Barnes in Yahoo! chat rooms, directing men to the counterfeit profiles, which led to unwanted phone calls, emails, and physical visits.
Barnes reached out to Yahoo! repeatedly through both email and postal mail, submitting photo identification and signed affidavits to request the removal of these profiles; however, she initially received no reply. Shortly before a local news segment was scheduled to cover her situation, Yahoo!'s Director of Communications finally responded with assurances that the matter would be personally addressed. Relying on this promise, Barnes refrained from taking further action.
Despite this, two months passed with the profiles still accessible and no additional communication from Yahoo!. As a result, Barnes initiated a lawsuit in Oregon’s district court. It was only after legal proceedings commenced that Yahoo! removed the offending profiles from its site.
Trial
Yahoo!, Inc. invoked the protections provided by the first clause of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents courts from holding certain internet service providers liable as publishers or speakers. Yahoo! claimed immunity under Section 230, which "shields interactive computer services such as Yahoo! from liability arising from the publication of third-party content."
Barnes contended that her claim did not treat Yahoo! as a publisher responsible for third-party postings but was instead grounded in Section 323 of an Oregon tort law theory.
She argued that after Yahoo!'s communication with her, she relied on its affirmative obligation to remove and block any reappearance of the profiles as promised. Barnes maintained that Yahoo! neglected to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling this duty, resulting in harm to her. Furthermore, she asserted that Yahoo!'s failure to remove the profiles amounted to a violation of Oregon tort law based on section 323 of the Restatement of Torts, Second.
Outcome
The court found that Barnes' claims were encompassed by Section 230’s extensive immunity provisions protecting Internet service providers like Yahoo!. Any allegations treating such providers as publishers were barred under this statute. The court also dismissed Barnes' argument that Yahoo!’s failure to take down defamatory content nullified its immunity.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Internet service providers enjoy immunity under Section 230 from liability for not removing indecent material. The Ninth Circuit overturned the lower court’s ruling in Oregon by granting Yahoo!’s motion to dismiss.
Similar incidents
In 2012, a woman using the pseudonym "Jane Doe" on the Model Mayhem platform was lured into a fraudulent audition and subsequently sexually assaulted. She initiated legal action against Internet Brands, the proprietor of Model Mayhem, claiming that the company hosted the audition's text, was aware of the unlawful material, and failed in its duty to warn. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2014 decision, determined that Section 230 does not eliminate a duty to warn, explicitly dismissing Barnes v. Yahoo! as controlling precedent. Nevertheless, Jane Doe was unable to demonstrate that Model Mayhem had actual knowledge of the content, resulting in dismissal without further examination of Section 230 protections.
External links
- Public Citizen et al amicus brief supporting rehearing
- Yahoo's rehearing petition
- Ninth Circuit's repeated misinterpretation of 47 USC 230—Barnes v. Yahoo
- Ninth Circuit oral argument recordings
- Yahoo prevails in online harassment case under 47 USC 230
- Yahoo's brief supporting motion to dismiss
- Yahoo's motion to dismiss
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, CDA immunity, and promissory estoppel analysis
- Raising a Section 230 immunity defense via motion to dismiss