Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Mortgage Relief Bill Stalls in U.S. Senate | Main | Study Finds that Firms That Use Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts Often Do Not Use Such Clauses in Nonconsumer Contracts »

Thursday, June 26, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7a769e200e5538eaab28834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mynutritionstore’s not-so-ingenious theory to evade the CDA’s protection for consumer complaint sites:

Comments

Please reply to this

So am I correct to assume that as soon as 800notes is given notice that a posting is untrue, that they are then required to remove it? And if not, no longer enjoy the 'immunity' provided by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230?

I've noted what I am referring to by separating it from the main paragraph:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the House, where it had been separately introduced by Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from action against them for the actions of others, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

. .........Effectively, this section immunizes ISPs and other service providers from torts committed by users over their systems, unless the provider fails to take action after actual notice..........

or is itself involved in the process of creation or development of the content[1]. As a result of the Seigenthaler incident, and other incidents where individuals have been allegedly libeled by anonymous or judgment-proof parties, this section of the Act has come under fire, with numerous calls for revisions to the Act to restore service provider liability in some cases.[citation needed]

Please reply to this

To further clarify, is there a strict interpretation between 'unfavorable' comments and 'outright lies'? Is the service provider liable for posting 'outright lies' if he/she has been made aware that the posting is false and unture?

Please reply to this

To further clarify, is there a strict interpretation between 'unfavorable' comments and 'outright lies'? Is the service provider liable for posting 'outright lies' if he/she has been made aware that the posting is false and unture?

Reply

It looks like Wikipedia was edited since then to say the opposite: "Effectively, this section immunizes ISPs and other service providers from torts committed by users over their systems, even if the provider fails to take action after actual notice[1]."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31