Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 43 Number 2 Article 1 1-1-2010 Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act David S. Ardia Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 373 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol43/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE SPEECH SAVIOR OR SHIELD FOR SCOUNDRELS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF INTERMEDIARY IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT David S. Ardia * In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has become one of the most important statutes impacting online speech, as well as one of the most intensely criticized. In deceptively simple language, its provisions sweep away the common law's distinction between publisher and distributor liability, granting operators of Web sites and other interactive computer services broad protectionfrom claims based on the speech of third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance because virtually all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated by private intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the speech they facilitate. This Article presents the first empirical study of the section 230 case law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of common law liabilityfor intermediaries,both online and offline, and describes how section 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches.It then systematically analyzes the 184 decisions courts have issued since the statute's enactment. The Article also examines how courts have applied section 230, finding that judges have been haphazard in their approach to its application. The Article closes by discussing the study's findings and by offering some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have fared under section 230. While section 230 has largely protected * Resident Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. As with any project that stretches over several years, a number of people provided invaluable assistance and feedback, including Sam Bayard, Rob Fais, Eric Goldman, Eszter Hargittai, Lewis Hyde, Phil Malone, John Palfrey, Mary-Rose Papandrea, Carolina Rossini, Wendy Seltzer, Jonathan Zittrain, and members of the Yale-Harvard-MIT Cyberscholars Working Group. I also received help from an exceptional group of research assistants: Lee Baker, Reed Bienvenu, Courtney French, Olivia Jennings, Rachel Miller-Ziegler, David O'Brien, Amanda Rice, Natalie Senst, and Stefani Wittenauer. Funding for the initial collection of cases was provided by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. 374 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LA WREVIEW [Vol. 43:373 intermediariesfrom liabilityfor third-party speech, it has not been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than a third of the claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 defense. Even in cases where the court dismissed the claims, intermediaries bore liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took courts, on average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an intermediary'sdefense under section 230. Winter 2010] COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT§ 230 375 TABLE OF CONTENTS IN TRODU CTION ................................................................................. 377 I. B ACKGROUND .............................................................................. 382 A. The Pervasiveness of Private Intermediaries ................... 385 B. Intermediary Control over Third-Party Speech ............... 389 II. DOCTRINAL OVERVIEW ............................................................... 392 A. Overview of Common Law Liability for Interm ediaries .................................................................. 393 1. Primary Speaker Liability .......................................... 394 2. Publisher Liability ...................................................... 397 3. Distributor Liability ................................................... 397 4. Conduit Liability ........................................................ 398 B. First Amendment Limitations on Intermediary L iab ility ........................................................................... 40 1 C. The Early Internet Speech Cases ..................................... 406 D. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 .................... 409 1. Legislative History of Section 230 ............................ 409 2. Judicial Application of Section 230 ........................... 411 III. SUMMARY STATISTICS ............................................................... 412 A. Study Methodology ......................................................... 413 B. Distribution of Decisions ................................................. 415 1. Distribution by Year and Jurisdiction ........................ 415 2. Distribution by Venue ................................................ 421 3. Distribution by Legal Claim ...................................... 427 4. Distribution by Medium of Publication and Content Type ............................................................. 430 5. Distribution by Intermediary Role ............................. 432 C . W in R ates ......................................................................... 434 D. Appeal, Affirmance, and Reversal Rates ......................... 442 IV. CONTENT ANALYSIS .................................................................. 446 A. Areas of Judicial Inquiry ................................................. 446 1. Interactive Computer Services Covered .................... 447 2. Legal Claims Covered ................................................ 450 3. Information Content Providers Covered .................... 454 4. Nature of the Intermediary's Relationship with the Content's Source ....................................................... 457 376 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LA WREVIEW [Vol. 43:373 5. Nature of the Intermediary's Interaction with the Content ...................................................................... 460 6. Nature of the Intermediary's Relationship with the Plaintiff or Public ...................................................... 464 B. Correlation and Regression Analyses .............................. 468 1. Expected Findings ...................................................... 474 2. Unexpected Findings ................................................. 474 V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 475 A. Viability of Claims Under Common Law Liability Theories........................................................................... 475 B. Assessing Section 230's Impact on Defendants .............. 480 1. The Proper Timing of a Section 230 Defense ............ 482 2. Imposition of Sanctions and Attorneys' Fees ............ 485 C. Assessing Section 230's Impact on Plaintiffs .................. 486 1. Finding and Suing the Source .................................... 486 2. Content Rem oval ....................................................... 489 CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 492 APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 495 I. M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 495 A. Target Population ............................................................. 495 B. Sample Selection .............................................................. 495 C. Coding .............................................................................. 497 D. Case and Party Research .................................................. 497 1. Third Party Sued in Another Case ............................. 498 2. Third-Party Source Liability ...................................... 498 3. Content Available Online .......................................... 498 4. Anonymous Online Content ...................................... 498 5. Case Disposition ........................................................ 499 6. Verdict or Settlem ent Am ount ................................... 499 7. Appeal Status ............................................................. 499 E. Analysis ............................................................................ 499 II. ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................ 500 Winter 2010] COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT § 230 INTRODUCTION What many consider the largest public space in human history is not public at all. Paradoxically, the Internet-a content-agnostic communication network available to anyone with access to a computer-contains no true "public forum."1 It embraces no public commons upon which a citizen is free to stand on his or her virtual soapbox and regale the public.2 It is layered on privately owned Web sites, privately owned servers, privately owned routers, and privately owned backbones.