Tag: responsabilità editoriale

Approfondimenti sul safe harbour ex § 230 CDA (casinò virtuali , responsabilità editoriale e compartecipazione all’illecito)

Il distretto nord della California, S. Josè division,  2 settembre 2022, Case No. 5:21-md-02985-EJD , Case No. 5:21-md-03001-EJD e Case No. 5:21-cv-02777-EJD, decide una lite promossa per putative class action verso le major tecnologiche Apple, Google e Facebook per violazione di diverse norme di consumer protection.

In particolare le accusa -in concorso con i gestori di cyber casinò- di aver fatto perdere soldi agli utenti promuovendo attivamente applicazioni di giochi a denaro (casino), meglio detti <social casinos applications>

Le major ovviamente eccepiscono il safe harbour in oggetto.

La corte entra nel dettaglio sia del business dei casinò virtuali sia della storia del § 230 CDA.

Quello che qui però interessa è la qualificazione della domanda proposta.

Infatti solo se l’attore tratta le convenute come speaker/publisher, queste fruire del safe harbour. E delle tre possibili teorie di responsabilità propettate dall’attore, una (la seconda) viene ritenuta di responsabilità per fatto proprio anzichè editoriale: per questa dunque il safe harbour non opera.

In particolare: << Unlike Plaintiffs’ first theory of liability, which attempts to hold the Platforms liable in
their “editorial” function, Plaintiffs’ second theory of liability seeks to hold the Platforms liable
for their own conduct. Importantly, the conduct identified by Plaintiffs in their complaints is
alleged to be unlawful. As alleged, players must buy virtual chips from the Platforms app stores
and may only use these chips in the casino apps. It is this sale of virtual chips that is alleged to be
illegal. Plaintiffs neither take issue with the Platforms’ universal 30% cut, nor the Platforms’
virtual currency sale. Plaintiffs only assert that the Platforms role as a “bookie” is illegal.
Plaintiffs therefore do not attempt to treat the Platforms as “the publisher or speaker” of thirdparty content, but rather seek to hold the Platforms responsible for their own illegal conduct—the
sale of gambling chips. Compare Taylor v. Apple, Inc., No. 46 Civ. Case 3:20-cv-03906-RS (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 19, 2021) (“Plaintiffs’ theory is that Apple is distributing games that are effectively slot
machines—illegal under the California Penal Code. . . . Plaintiffs are seeking to hold Apple liable
for selling allegedly illegal gaming devices, not for publishing or speaking information.”), with
Coffee v. Google, LLC, 2022 WL 94986, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) (“In the present case,
Google’s conduct in processing sales of virtual currency is not alleged to be illegal. To the
contrary, the [Complaint] states that ‘[v]irtual currency is a type of unregulated digital currency
that is only available in electronic form.’ If indeed the sale of Loot Boxes is illegal, the facts
alleged in the FAC indicate that such illegality is committed by the developer who sells the Loot
Box for virtual currency, not by Google.” (second alteration in original) (emphasis added)) ….

The Court holds that Plaintiffs’ first and third theories of liability must be dismissed under
section 230. However, Plaintiffs’ second theory of liability is not barred by section 230. The
Court thus GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss.  >>

E’ una questione assai interssante di teoria civilistica quella di capire quando ricorra responsabilità vicaria o per concorso paritario nel fatto altrui o responsabilità solo editoriale.    Interessante anche perchè è alla base della discplin armonizzata UE della  responsabilità del provider.

(notizia e link alla sentenza da blog del prof Eric Goldman)

Twitter è esente da responsabilità diffamatoria, fruendo del safe harbour ex § 230 CDA statunitense

Altra decisione che esenta Twitter da responsabilità diffamatoria sulla base del § 230 Communication Decency Act CDA.

Si tratta di US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK del 17 settempbre 2020, MAYER CHAIM BRIKMAN (RABBI) ed altri c. Twitter e altro, caso 1:19-cv-05143-RPK-CLP.  Ne dà notizia l’aggiornato blog di Eric Goldman.

Un rabbino aveva citato Twitter (e un utente che aveva retwittato)  per danni e injunction, affermando che Twitter aveva ospitato e non rimosso un finto account della sinagoga, contenente post offensivi. Dunque era responsabile del danno diffamatorio.

Precisamente: <<they claim that through “actions and/or inactions,” Twitter has “knowingly and with malice . . . allowed and helped non-defendant owners of Twitter handle @KnesesG, to abuse, harras [sic], bully, intimidate, [and] defame” plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 10-12. Plaintiffs aver that by allowing @KnesesG to use its platform in this way, Twitter has committed “Libel Per Se” under the laws of the State of New York. Ibid. As relevant here, they seek an award of damages and injunctive relief that would prohibit Twitter from “publishing any statements constituting defamation/libel . . . in relation to plaintiffs.”>>.

L’istanza è respinta in base al safe harbour presente nel § 230 CDA.

Vediamo il passaggio specifico.

Il giudice premette (ricorda) che i requisiti della fattispecie propria dell’esimente sono i soliti tre:  i) che sia un internet provider; ii) che si tratti di informazioni provenienti da terzo; iii) che la domanda lo consideri “as the publisher or speaker of that information” e cioè come editore-

Pacificamente presenti i primi due, andiamo a vedere il terzo punto, qui il più importante e cioè quello della prospettazione attorea come editore.

<<Finally, plaintiffs’ claims would hold Twitter liable as the publisher or speaker of the information provided by @KnesesG. [NB: il finto account della sinagoga contenente post offensivi].  Plaintiffs allege that Twitter has “allowed and helped” @KnesesG to defame plaintiffs by hosting its tweets on its platform … or by refusing to remove those tweets when plaintiffs reported them …  Either theory would amount to holding Twitter liable as the “publisher or speaker” of “information provided by another information content provider.” See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Making information public and distributing it to interested parties are quintessential acts of publishing. See Facebook, 934 F.3d at 65-68.

Plaintiffs’ theory of liability would “eviscerate Section 230(c)(1)” because it would hold Twitter liable “simply [for] organizing and displaying content exclusively provided by third parties.” … Similarly, holding Twitter liable for failing to remove the tweets plaintiffs find objectionable would also hold Twitter liable based on its role as a publisher of those tweets because “[d]eciding whether or not to remove content . . . falls squarely within [the] exercise of a publisher’s traditional role and is therefore subject to the CDA’s broad immunity.” Murawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); see Ricci, 781 F.3d at 28 (finding allegations that defendant “refused to remove” allegedly defamatory content could not withstand immunity under the CDA).

Plaintiff’s suggestion that Twitter aided and abetted defamation “[m]erely [by] arranging and displaying others’ content” on its platform fails to overcome Twitter’s immunity under the CDA because such activity “is not enough to hold [Twitter] responsible as the ‘developer’ or ‘creator’ of that content.” … Instead, to impose liability on Twitter as a developer or creator of third-party content—rather than as a publisher of it—Twitter must have “directly and materially contributed to what made the content itself unlawful.” Id. at 68 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., id. at 69-71 (finding that Facebook could not be held liable for posts published by Hamas because it neither edited nor suggested edits to those posts); Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that Yelp was not liable for defamation because it did “absolutely nothing to enhance the defamatory sting of the message beyond the words offered by the user”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 257 (4th Cir. 2009) (rejecting plaintiffs’ claims because they “[did] not show, or even intimate” that the defendant “contributed to the allegedly fraudulent nature of the comments at issue”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1358 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[A] website does not create or develop content when it merely provides a neutral means by which third parties can post information of their own independent choosing online.”).

Plaintiffs have not alleged that Twitter contributed to the defamatory content of the tweets at issue and thus have pleaded no basis upon which it can be held liable as the creator or developer of those tweets. See Goddard v. Google, Inc., No. 08-cv-2738 (JF), 2008 WL 5245490, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) (rejecting plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claims as “simply inconsistent with § 230” because plaintiff had made “no allegations . . . that Google ‘developed’ the offending ads in any respect”); cf. LeadClick, 838 F.3d at 176 (finding defendant was not entitled to immunity under the CDA because it “participated in the development of the deceptive content posted on fake news pages”).

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ defamation claims against Twitter also satisfy the final requirement for CDA preemption: the claims seek to hold Twitter, an interactive computer service, liable as the publisher of information provided by another information content provider, @KnesesG>>.

Interessante è che l’allegazione censurava non solo l’omessa rimozione ma pure il semplice hosting del post: forse mescolando fatti relativi alla perdita delll’esimente (responsabilità in negativo) con quelli relativi alla responsabilità in positivo.