{"id":5235,"date":"2017-08-06T13:11:38","date_gmt":"2017-08-06T13:11:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ftcguardian.com\/articles\/?p=5235"},"modified":"2017-08-13T20:43:10","modified_gmt":"2017-08-13T20:43:10","slug":"sex-lies-and-a-dumb-mistake-your-blog-website-cant-afford","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ftcguardian.com\/articles\/sex-lies-and-a-dumb-mistake-your-blog-website-cant-afford\/","title":{"rendered":"Sex, Lies… And a Dumb Mistake Your Blog Website Can\u2019t Afford"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sex, Lies… And a Dumb Mistake Your Blog Website Can\u2019t Afford<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Chip Cooper, Esq<\/p>\n

Does your website incorporate a blog or forum \u2013 where users may post text or files?\u00a0 If so, are you liable if your users post defamatory materials about someone else?<\/p>\n

In 1996, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230) came to the rescue of \u201cinteractive computer services\u201d by overruling prior case law that would hold websites liable.\u00a0 But Section 230 is not absolute.\u00a0 Interactive websites may still be liable as the May, 2009, Ninth Circuit case of Barnes v. Yahoo, Inc. illustrates.<\/p>\n

Sex And Lies<\/strong><\/p>\n

The case of Barnes v. Yahoo involved salacious facts centering on the aftermath of a break-up between plaintiff Cecilia Barnes and her boyfriend.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

After the break-up, Barnes\u2019 ex-boyfriend created fictitious profiles for her on a website operated by Yahoo.\u00a0 Included were nude photos, plus offers for sex.\u00a0 To make matters worse, he also provided her email address, physical address, and work phone number.\u00a0 All this resulted in Barnes receiving emails and calls with the expectation of a sexual liaison.<\/p>\n

The Dumb Mistake<\/strong><\/p>\n

After Barnes\u2019 four separate emails to Yahoo demanding the removal of the objectionable materials did not result in their removal, Barnes received a call from an executive at Yahoo.\u00a0 Barnes alleged that the executive promised to \u201ctake care of it\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 Barnes further alleged that she relied on this promise and took no further action to remove the objectionable materials.<\/p>\n

You guessed it \u2013 Yahoo failed to remove the objectionable materials, and after two months, Barnes filed a lawsuit against Yahoo.<\/p>\n

Yahoo claimed complete immunity under Section 230(c)(1), and the trial court agreed by dismissing Barnes\u2019 suit.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n

Barnes appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that Yahoo\u2019s failure to make good on its promise took Yahoo out of the protection of Section 230.<\/p>\n

The essence of Section 230 is that it removed an \u201cinteractive computer service\u201d such as the Yahoo website from \u201cpublisher\u201d liability for materials posted by a user.\u00a0 \u201cInteractive computer services\u201d include websites that offer interactive services such as blogs, forums, and listservs.\u00a0 As a result of Section 230, website publishers are treated differently from publishers in print, TV, and radio.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit agreed that Yahoo\u2019s failure to make good on its promise took Yahoo out of the protection of Section 230(c)(1).\u00a0 Essentially, the promise was held to be an act separate and distinct from Yahoo\u2019s role as an online publisher, and therefore, this departure from the role of publisher would not be immunized.\u00a0 In short, this decision illustrates that the Section 230 protections for interactive websites is not bullet-proof.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ruling in Barnes v. Yahoo does not diminish the immunity provided to interactive websites by Section 230, provided that the website does not venture out of its role as publisher.\u00a0 The lesson from this case is that explicit promises to remove objectionable materials may well lead to liability for failure to make good on the promise.<\/p>\n

One additional take-away is that all interactive websites should review their Terms of Use to insure that there is no provision that could be construed as a promise or guarantee for a specific response to a complaint by a user.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s How To Make Sure You,\u00a0Your Business & Website Is FTC Compliant<\/h2>\n

By now it should be clear how important it is for you to be FTC compliant. But how can you do that without spending $7,500-$8,000 or more on Internet Attorneys?<\/p>\n

Smart business owners around the world are doing it with the help of FTC Guardian.<\/p>\n

FTC Guardian is a service that is 100% focused on helping to keep you get and stay FTC compliant and fully protected.\u00a0And right now, we are offering a free training to give you the knowledge, information, and guidance that you need to stay out of trouble with the Federal Trade Commission.<\/a><\/p>\n

Free Compliance Workshop: Join Chip Cooper, Esq., the #1 FTC Compliance trainer in the World, for a one-of-kind, completely free online compliance workshop. Workshops fill up quickly, so register now.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Here are some of the things you\u2019ll discover on the training:<\/p>\n