Though there was a question as to whether the information provider intended to send the email to the listserv, the Court decided that for determining the liability of the service provider, "the focus should be not on the information provider's intentions or knowledge when transmitting content but, instead, on the service provider's or user's reasonable perception of those intentions or knowledge." The Court found immunity proper "under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the position of the service provider or user would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet or other 'interactive computer service'." The court upheld immunity for AOL against allegations of negligence.
Green claimed AOL failed to adequately police its services and allowed third parties to defame him and inflict intentional emotional distress.
The court rejected these arguments because holding AOL negligent in promulgating harmful content would be equivalent to holding AOL "liable for decisions relating to the monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from its network -- actions quintessentially related to a publisher's role." Immunity was upheld for an individual internet user from liability for republication of defamatory statement on a listserv.
The court found the defendant to be a "user of interactive computer services" and thus immune from liability for posting information passed to her by the author.
Backpage asked for Dart to retract his "cease and desist" letters. A California Appellate Court unanimously upheld immunity from state tort claims arising from an employee's use of the employer's e-mail system to send threatening messages. of an interactive service." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected immunity for claims of negligence under California law.
The court concluded that an employer that provides Internet access to its employees qualifies as a "provider . Doe filed a complaint against Internet Brands which alleged a "failure to warn" her of a known rape scheme, despite her relationship to them as a Model member.
Within two days both companies withdrew their services from Backpage.The 9th Circuit's decision in Perfect 10 conflicts with conclusions from other courts including Doe v. The Friendfinder court specifically discussed and rejected the lower court's reading of "intellectual property law" in CCBill and held that the immunity does not reach state right of publicity claims. The plaintiff, Carafano, claimed the false profile defamed her, but because the content was created by a third party, the website was immune, even though it had provided multiple choice selections to aid profile creation.because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their systems. Immunity was upheld for a website operator for distributing an email to a listserv where the plaintiff claimed the email was defamatory.Immunity upheld against claims of fraud and money laundering.Google was not responsible for misleading advertising created by third parties who bought space on Google's pages.