Types of Claims Under the CDA
- Monica Stevenson Photography/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was enacted by Congress "to protect minors from harmful material on the Internet." The CDA never went into full effect as most of the provisions of the law were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court however allowed Section 230 of the CDA to go into force which granted immunity from criminal and civil prosecution to Internet service providers for any conduct committed by users of the service. - Section 230 of the CDA is most frequently applied by the courts in slander and libel cases. Under common law, any person or entity that restates a defamatory statement has the same level of culpability as the originator of the maliciously false comment. However, pursuant to Section 230 immunity, Internet service providers are immune from civil liability for republishing the false statements if the reprinting of the statement is automatic. However, if the website is moderated by the service provider, some courts have determined the immunity privilege is inapplicable.
- Section 230 of the CDA does not grant immunity to service providers from intellectual property claims. Therefore a plaintiff may bring copyright infringement, patent and trademark claims against an ISP who publishes content that would violate these property interests. For example, an ISP can be held liable if it permits users to download copyrighted materials or if it hosts and broadcasts such information.
- Section 230 also does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution. Therefore, service providers may be found criminally liable for any wrongful acts that violate federal, state or local statutes. In a recent high-profile interpretation, courts have found Section 230 to immunize Craigslist's "adult forum" from civil liability for alleged promotion of prostitution. However, legal scholars theorize that Section 230 would not prevent prosecution for similar criminal violations.
