Court: eBay's off the hook over feedback

Be careful when reading feedback left in online auctions: eBay and similar Web sites are not required to remove information that's false or even libelous, a court has decided.

A California appeals court ruled last week that eBay cannot be forced to remove allegedly defamatory information posted to the popular auction site by users.

A 1996 federal law shields eBay and similar "interactive computer services," the appeals court said on Thursday. "Plaintiff is, in effect, asking for what, in established libel law, would be akin to a retraction. However, (the law) precludes liability in the first place."

This legal dispute started as a typical online tiff. eBay user Roger Grace bought some items from eBay seller Tim Neeley. Grace left a negative comment in Neeley's feedback area, which can be viewed by all visitors and is intended to create a kind of reputation for participants. Neeley retaliated by typing in a note in Grace's profile: "complaint: should be banned from ebay!!!! dishonest all the way!!!!"

After eBay refused to remove the negative feedback from Grace's profile, Grace sued the San Jose, Calif., auction giant for allegedly publishing false and defamatory information about him, in violation of California libel laws.

The federal law cited in the ruling was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act, itself part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It says that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In a court decision from August 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law protected Web site operators from being sued for fabricated profiles on online dating sites.

[Razzl]

ISP's are significantly responsible for content

I'm sorry, but the public doesn't accept the idea that ISP's are just a conduit for data. Unlike earlier technologies like telephone, offensive or questionable content on a web site can easily be seen and evaluated by the ISP's staff. The fiction of the ISP as conduit has already been broken in cases involving music/video piracy, pornography, and copyright infringement: there's no reason why eBay should be seen as exempt from the reasonable requirement that they moderate a forum which they exclusively make possible by their proprietary software and web site. The longer the libel remains searchable on-line the greater the validity of the libel grievance. Sooner or later courts will flip on this issue. EBay should take the lead and make plans for having moderators to examine these issues and delete questionable feedback.

[Razzl]

ISP's are significantly responsible for content

I'm sorry, but the public doesn't accept the idea that ISP's are just a conduit for data. Unlike earlier technologies like telephone, offensive or questionable content on a web site can easily be seen and evaluated by the ISP's staff. The fiction of the ISP as conduit has already been broken in cases involving music/video piracy, pornography, and copyright infringement: there's no reason why eBay should be seen as exempt from the reasonable requirement that they moderate a forum which they exclusively make possible by their proprietary software and web site. The longer the libel remains searchable on-line the greater the validity of the libel grievance. Sooner or later courts will flip on this issue. EBay should take the lead and make plans for having moderators to examine these issues and delete questionable feedback.

[www-rexxfield-com]

United States federal law opens the door to Free Speech abuse and perpetuation thereof
Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act is probably the single greatest step backwards for the original intent of the first amendment as it relates to free speech in that the Internet allows 24/7 real time access to so much unfiltered information to so many people. The act is controversial because several courts have interpreted it as providing complete immunity for internet service and content providers with regard to the torts committed by their users over their systems. Section 230 ?creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.?

Many criticize Section 230 for leaving victims with no hope of relief where the true libelers cannot be identified or are judgment proof. Giants such as Google can as a result allow a person or business to be ruined at every level by ignoring the plight of innocent victims targeted by libelers, regardless of the evidence supporting the removal request. [See Google's template response to victim's request to remove libelous results from search index]: http://www.rexxfield.com/GoogleAllowsLibel.html

Freedom of Speech in Other Nations
Thankfully the section 230(c) license given to ISPs to disseminate and perpetuate online libel does not extend beyond the USA borders. However, this doesn't stop non-US internet users from accessing illegal and unprotected speech.

View my essay on this subject here: http://www.rexxfield.com/essay_internet_defamation_libel.html