Tort Cases in New Media From steve baron’s notes

MANDELL MENKES LLC 2 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com  Which Court?  Who’s the plaintiff?  Who’s the defendant?  What are they fightin’ about?  What is the Court asked to decide?

MANDELL MENKES LLC 3 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com  Court = Ninth Circuit  Plaintiff = Fair Housing Council of SF  Defendant = Roommates.com  They are fightin’ about whether Roomates.com violated federal fair housing law by allowing users to screen roommates.  Court is asked to decide whether Roommats.com is immune under Section 230 of CDA.

MANDELL MENKES LLC 4 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com  Defendant operated website to match prospective renters with people looking for a roommate. In order to view the site, users must submit information for their profiles, including gender, sexual orientation, and whether they live with children. Plaintiffs sued, arguing that defendant’s business violated the federal Fair Housing Act and California’s housing discrimination laws.

MANDELL MENKES LLC 5 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC (cont’d)

MANDELL MENKES LLC 6 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC (cont’d)  Court held:  Roommates.com was not immune from liability. Defendant became a content provider when it posted a questionnaire and required users to answer as a condition of doing business. Questions that are unlawful to ask in face-to-face interaction do not “magically” become lawful when posed online. However, “Additional Comments” section, which allowed users to write a short essay about what they were looking for in a roommate, received § 230 immunity because it was passively displayed by defendant and unedited.

MANDELL MENKES LLC 7 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com  What are the implications of this case for new media?  Is the distinction between active and passive solicitation of content clear?

MANDELL MENKES LLC 8 Stayart v. Yahoo! What’s a name worth?  Which court?  Who’s suing whom?  Why?  What are the issues on appeal?  Who wins and why?

MANDELL MENKES LLC 9 Stayart v. Yahoo! What’s a name worth?  Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals  Beverly Stayart sues Yahoo! and Friendfinder.com  Web searches linked her name to sites and ads she found “shameful”. (Endorsing pornography and online pharmaceuticals.) She sues for trademark infringement and state law claims.  Does Stayart have “standing” to sue in federal court for trademark infringement.  Yahoo! wins on appeal. Stayart lacks standing to sue for trademark infringement because she lacks a “commercial interest” in her name. Also, the District Court did not err in allowing her to amend her complaint.

MANDELL MENKES LLC 10 Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Company At what price anonymity?  What court?  Who’s suing whom?  Why?  What are the issues on appeal?  Who wins and why?

MANDELL MENKES LLC 11 Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Company At what price anonymity?  Illinois Appellate Court (3 rd Dist.)  Donald and Janet Maxon sue Ottawa Publishing, publisher of The Times.  The Maxons want to unmask the identity of certain anonymous posters on Ottawa’s web site.  What is the appropriate legal test to apply to a petition to identify anonymous speakers.  The Maxons win the appeal because the appellate court finds that the trial court applied an incorrect test and also finds that the Maxons stated a claim for defamation. So The Times must identify the anonymous posters.