L’aeroporto Logan di Boston, Massachusetts , USA, (poi : A.) non ammette servizi di car rental , se non concordati.
La piattaforma Turo (T.) offre un sercvizio di incontro domanda/offerta di car rental: <<Turo describes itself as “an online platform that operates a peer-to-peer marketplace connecting [hosts] with [guests] seeking cars on a short-term basis.” Turo has no office, rental counter, or other physical presence at Logan Airport. A guest seeking to rent a motor vehicle from a host would search Turo’s website or available listings, select and book a particular vehicle, and then coordinate the pick-up location and time with the host. Turo does not require its hosts to deliver vehicles to their guests, nor does Turo determine the parties’ particular rendezvous location>>, p. 4.
A. sanziona T. per aver violato il divieto di prestare servizi di noleggio auto se non su accordo (tentato da A. , ma rifiutato da T.).
Allora lo cita in giudizio per l’inibitoria del servizio e risarcimentoi danni. Ovviamente T. eccepisce il safe harbour ex 230 CDA.
La Suprema Corte del Massachusetts con decisione 21.04.2021, MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY vs. TURO INC. & others, conferma che non gli spetta. Essenzialmente perchè non è mero hosting di dati di terzi, ma “facilitatore”: <<The judge determined, and we agree, that Turo’s immunity claims fail as to the second prong because Massport’s claims against Turo regard the portion of the content on Turo’s website advertising Logan Airport as a desirable pick-up or drop-off location, which was created by Turo itself.>>, p. 11
Le informaizoni fornite da T., <<encouraging the use of Logan Airport as a desirable pick-up or drop-off location for its users is exactly the content Massport asserts is the basis for the claim of aiding and abetting. Cf. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Accusearch, Inc., 570 F.3d 1187, 1199 (10th Cir. 2009) (information service provider liable for “development of offensive content only if it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content”). Because this specific content was created by Turo, it cannot be construed reasonably as “information provided by another,” Backpage.com, 817 F.3d at 19, and Turo is not protected by § 230’s shield of immunity on the basis of this prong. As to the third prong, the judge ruled that immunity under § 230 is not available to Turo because, rather than seeking to hold Turo liable as the publisher or speaker for its users’ content, Massport’s claims sought to hold Turo liable for its own role in facilitating the online car rental transactions that resulted in its customers’ continuing trespass. The record supports the judge’s conclusion.>>, p. 12.
La Corte cita poi un precedente del 2019 di corte distrettuale del suo stato , coinvolgente Airbnb
Nel caso de quo, dice la SC, <<as in the Airbnb case, the record reflects that Turo serves a dual role as both the publisher of its users’ third-party listings and the facilitator of the rental transactions themselves, and in particular the rental transactions that occur on Massport’s Logan Airport property. Rather than focusing on what Turo allows its hosts to publish in their listings, Massport’s claims pointedly focus on Turo’s role as the facilitator of the ensuing rental transactions at Logan Airport, which is far more than just offering a website to serve as a go-between among those seeking to rent their vehicles and those seeking rental vehicles>> p. 14.
La fattispecie concreta si avvicina a quella europea «The Pirate Bay» decisa da Corte giustizia 14.06.2017, C‑610/15 (pur se a proposito della comunicazione al pubblico in diritto di autore).
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)