Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of New York, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 281 (2011)
Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), website operators are generally immune from liability for defamatory content posted by third-party users, unless the operator is also the “information content provider” who materially contributed to the illegality of the content.
Summary
Christakis Shiamili sued The Real Estate Group of New York (TREGNY) and its principals for defamation based on user-generated comments posted on TREGNY’s website. The New York Court of Appeals held that Section 230 of the CDA immunized TREGNY from liability. The Court reasoned that TREGNY was a provider of an interactive computer service, the defamatory statements were provided by another information content provider (the users), and TREGNY’s actions in moderating the website did not rise to the level of materially contributing to the defamation. This case clarifies the scope of CDA immunity in New York, aligning it with the national consensus favoring broad protection for online intermediaries.
Facts
Shiamili, CEO of Ardor Realty Corp, sued TREGNY, a competitor, and its principals Baum and McCann, alleging defamation and unfair competition. The suit stemmed from comments posted on TREGNY’s real estate blog by a user under the pseudonym “Ardor Realty Sucks.” The comments contained racist, anti-Semitic, and disparaging remarks about Shiamili and his company. McCann, as the website administrator, moved the comment to a stand-alone post with a provocative heading and subheading. Shiamili requested removal of the defamatory statements, but McCann refused. Additional defamatory comments were posted by other anonymous users.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the extent of their role in authoring or developing content was unclear. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the motion to dismiss based on CDA immunity. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, dismissing the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes a website operator from liability for defamatory comments posted by third-party users on its website, where the operator performs traditional editorial functions such as moderating and reposting content.
Holding
Yes, because Section 230 of the CDA protects website operators from liability for third-party content unless the operator is also an “information content provider” who materially contributes to the alleged illegality, and the defendants’ actions in this case did not rise to that level.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals adopted the national consensus view of Section 230, holding that it generally immunizes Internet service providers from liability for third-party content if such liability depends on characterizing the provider as a “publisher or speaker” of objectionable material. The court emphasized that Section 230 was intended to “maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum.” The court acknowledged that service providers are not immune if they are also considered a content provider themselves, meaning they were partly responsible for the creation or development of the information. However, the court declined to adopt a broad view of “development”. Even under the Ninth Circuit’s approach, which considers a website a content provider if it contributes materially to the alleged illegality, the court found TREGNY was still immune. The court reasoned that creating a forum for third-party content, including negative commentary, is at the core of what Section 230 protects. Moving a comment to its own post constituted a “publisher’s traditional editorial function” and did not materially contribute to the defamation. The court distinguished the case from those where the website required illegal content as a condition of use or actively worked with users to develop the defamatory commentary. The court held that the headings and illustration added by TREGNY were not defamatory as a matter of law. The court quoted Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 152 (1993), stating that the illustration was obviously satirical and no reasonable reader could conclude it was conveying facts about the plaintiff.