Fair Housing Council v. roommates.com, LLC

Opinion by Judge KOZINSKI; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge IKUTA.

We consider the scope of immunity accorded to an online roommate matching service by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c).

Facts

The Internet has opened new channels of communication and self-expression. See Lev Grossman, Time’s Person of the Year: You, Time Mag., Dec. 13, 2006-Jan. 1, 2007, at 38, 40-41. Countless individuals use message boards, date matching sites, interactive social networks, blog hosting services and video sharing websites to make themselves and their ideas visible to the world. 1 While such intermediaries enable the user-driven digital age, they also create new legal problems.

This case involves one such intermediary, Roommate.com, LLC (“Roommate”), which operates an online roommate matching website at www.roommates.com. This website helps individuals find roommates based on their descriptions of themselves and their roommate preferences. Roommates.com has approximately 150,000 active listings and receives about a million page views per day.

To become members of Roommate, users respond to a series of online…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join Judge Kozinski’s opinion for the court, except for its holding that the Communications Decency Act (the “Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 230 (c), immunizes Roommate from liability with respect to the statements contained in the “Additional Comments” section of users’ profiles, some of which expressly state the preferences of landlords for tenants based on race, 1 religion, 2 gender, 3 sexual orientation, 4 and national origin. 5 I would hold instead that none of the information that the Fair Housing Councils of San Fernando Valley and San Diego (“Councils”) challenge satisfies the test for § 230(c) immunity.

Roommate cannot receive § 230(c) immunity for publishing information in the “Additional Comments,” if it is “responsible ... in part, for the ... creation or development of information.” § 230(c), (f)(3); see also Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir.2003). The court’s opinion here sets forth two independent tests to determine whether Roommate, an interactive computer service, is responsible in part for creating or developing information under § 230(c): first, whether Roommate categorizes, channels and limits the distribution of…

concurring in part.

I concur in sections one and three of the majority opinion and its holding, but write separately to express my disagreement with section two.

Section 230(f)(3) defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3). Although “[sjection 230 does not preclude joint liability for the joint development of content,” the present case does not require us to determine what types of conduct would make a website operator a joint information content provider. Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44, 50 (D.D.C.1998) (holding that AOL was immune from suit under the CDA, despite contracting with, and promoting the activities, of, a gossip columnist and rumor monger, in the absence of evidence that AOL “had some role in writing or editing the material” in the gossip column). Therefore, there is no need for the majority’s discussion of this issue. Indeed, the majority agrees that its tentative considerations in section two regarding “the outer limits of Carafano’s protection of…

Facts

The Internet has opened new channels of communication and self-expression. See Lev Grossman, Time’s Person of the Year: You, TIME MAG., Dec. 13, 2006-Jan. 1, 2007, at 38, 40- 41. Countless individuals use message boards, date matching sites, interactive social networks, blog hosting services and video sharing websites to make themselves and their ideas visible to the world.1 While such intermediaries enable the user-driven digital age, they also create new legal problems. 1 Confirming perhaps Andy Warhol’s prediction that everyone would eventually enjoy a trillion or so nanoseconds of fame. 5714 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL v. ROOMMATE.COM This case involves one such intermediary, Roommate.com, LLC (“Roommate”), which operates an online roommate matching website at www.roommates.com. This website helps individuals find roommates based on their descriptions of themselves and their roommate preferences. Room- mates.com has approximately 150,000 active listings and receives about a million page views per day.

To become members of Roommate, users respond to a series of online questionnaires by choosing from answers in drop-down and select-a-box menus. Users must disclose…