Carafano v. Metrosplash.Com Inc., CV-01-0018 DT(CWX).
| Decision Date | 11 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-01-0018 DT(CWX).,CV-01-0018 DT(CWX). |
| Citation | 207 F.Supp.2d 1055 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Christianne CARAFANO (aka Chase Masterson), an Individual, Plaintiff, v. METROSPLASH.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Lycos, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Matchmaker.com, Inc., a Texas corporation, Bradley R. Tyer, an Individual; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. |
Gregory J. Aldisert, Caroline Heindel Burgos, Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman, Machtinger & Kinsella, Los Angeles, CA, for Christianne Carafano, an individual aka Chase Masterson, plaintiffs.
Peter Sullivan, Lisa R. Rafferty, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, Timothy
L. Alger, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, Los Angeles, CA, for Metrosplash.com Inc, a Delaware corporation, Lycos Inc, a Delaware corporation, Matchmaker.com Inc, a Texas corporation, Does, 1 through 20, inclusive, defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS LYCOS, INC. AND METROSPLASH.COM, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This action is brought by Plaintiff Christianne Carafano (aka Chase Masterson) ("Plaintiff") against Defendants Metrosplash.com, Inc., Lycos, Inc., Matchmaker.com, Inc. and Bradley R. Tyer for invasion of privacy, misappropriation of right of publicity, defamation and negligence.1
The following facts are found to be undisputed2:
Plaintiff is an actress who goes by the stage name of "Chase Masterson." Plaintiff has appeared in numerous movies and a long-running television program, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, in which she had a prominent recurring role. Her character, Leeta the D'abo girl, was popular with fans. In addition to acting, Plaintiff makes a living from public appearances at Star Trek conventions and other fan events.
Matchmaker.com ("Matchmaker") is a service, accessed from the World Wide Web, that permits members to search a database containing of profiles posted by other members. Matchmaker has 79 "communities," 62 of which focus on particular cities, states or regions. Eleven communities focus on age groups, religious interests and lifestyles. There are six international communities. Matchmaker has more than 200,000 members. Many of Matchmaker's members are "trial members," who can use the service for a limited period at no charge. To continue after the trial period has expired, a member must agree to pay a monthly fee.
To join Matchmaker, a new member fills in an application, which requires an email address to be included. Upon completion, Matchmaker sends an automatic "welcome email" to the email address provided. If a person were to reply to the "welcome email," it goes to the system operator (i.e. customer service representative) for that website. The new member must also complete a questionnaire of up to 62 multiple-choice questions and must answer at least one of a series of essay questions and may post up to 10 photographs. Matchmaker tailors its questionnaires for each Matchmaker community, so that they vary from one website community to another. The questions, answers to the questions, and the optional photographs become the data that makes up the member's "profile." The data provided by the member is stored on Matchmaker's servers. When the profile is called up by the member, or by other members during searches of the Matchmaker database, it is displayed in a standard format. A profile is constructed anew by Matchmaker's servers, using a script that causes the member's browser to display the profile information with the standard graphic elements designed by Matchmaker each time the profile is called up for viewing. Membership is anonymous. Each member selects a name to which the system automatically appends an arbitrary number so every member has a unique identifier. Once a person becomes a member of a community, such as the Los Angeles Metro community, he or she can search that community's database and view profiles posted by other members. Each member has a mailbox; members can send emails to each other within the Matchmaker system. Through the Internet, many thousands of members are able to simultaneously access and use a searchable database maintained on Defendants' computer servers. Indeed, when a member logs into the service, the member is informed of other members in their particular community who are also "on-line" at that time. This allows members to communicate immediately with cach other by email and in "chat rooms," where numerous people can share messages instantaneously. Matchmaker's servers also are constantly processing database searches by members located around the world. Matchmaker's servers are capable of handling 16,400 transactions per second.
The multiple-choice questions for the Los Angles Metro Community include the following:
Your current living situation is? Happily married, Not so happily married, Married and we swing, Divorced living alone.
What style of dress do you prefer? I like to get dressed up, I like to dress casual, I dress for the occasion, What ever is clean, Preppy, Punk, Nude, Just call me Fred Flintstone.
Finally, why did you call? Hoping to start a relationship, Seeking an occasional lover, Hunting for a roommate, Scouting out for swinging couples, Looking for a pen pal only, Just looking/curious, A friend put me up to this, Looking for a one-night stand, I found the number on a bathroom wall, I don't know and I won't call back.
Other than the information volunteered by members when they respond to the questionnaire, and the credit card or check information obtained when a member becomes a paying member, Matchmaker does not collect personal information about members. Nor does Matchmaker verify the information provided by members when they join the service. Matchmaker does not pre-screen the text answers to its questionnaire of member profiles. Members are made aware of the possibility that the profiles are created by other members, and some information might be inaccurate or unreliable. To become a member and gain access to the Matchmaker database for their community, every person must agree to the Matchmaker Disclaimer. As part of its terms and conditions for membership, Matchmaker prohibits the inclusion of the following information (among other things) in a profile: home address, email address, telephone number, offensive sexually suggestive or connotative language. Only when a member becomes a paying member and elects to pay the fee by credit card or check does Matchmaker obtain any personal information, and that information is kept in confidence. Matchmaker does not review the answers to questionnaires before that information is included in the database and made available for searching by members. As soon as a new member completes the questionnaire, the resulting profile is made available on-line to other members of the community. At any time, existing members may call up their own profiles and make changes. These changes also are not reviewed by Matchmaker prior to posting.
Matchmaker reviews all photographs before they are posted on the service. Each community has a system operator who handles member inquiries and complaints. When a member submits photographs for his or her profile, the photographs are routed to the system operator assigned to that member's community. The system operator then reviews the photographs before they are included in the Matchmaker database. The system operator eliminates all photographs that violate Matchmaker's standards. According to Defendants, while photographs can be efficiently and consistently evaluated under objective criteria (such as the ban on nudity in most Matchmaker communities), the monitoring of text would be necessarily subjective and would place Matchmaker in the role of editor, censor and arbiter of good taste. Defendants further contend that evaluation of text also is impractical because of the great number of profiles on the service, and the time that reading and analyzing the essay answers would require.
Matchmaker relies on its members to report abuses. Whenever a member complains about inappropriate content posted by others, the system operator in charge of that community investigates and, if appropriate, edits or removes the offending profile.
On October 23, 1999, an unknown person created a trial account under the name "Chase 529" on the Los Angeles "metro" community. Matchmaker's records show that the profile ("Profile") was posted and subsequently modified one time by a person using computer terminals in Europe. The Profile included Plaintiff's home address and an email address and four photographs of Plaintiff. The email address in the Profile prompted the following automatic response:
"You think you're the one.
Proof it!!
[Plaintiff's home address]
[Plaintiff's telephone number]."
Matchmaker admits that the home address and email address in the Profile violated its terms and conditions.
Plaintiff alleges that other essay answers and the answer to a multiple-choice question falsely characterize her as licentious. She alleges that the Profile contains a litany of false statements about her, including the following; She contacted Matchmaker because she was "looking for a one-night stand"; she "might be persuaded to have a homosexual experience"; her main source for current events is Playboy/Playgirl; she is interested in meeting someone ; she likes "being controlled by a man in and out of bed." Plaintiff also asserts that the Profile disclosed that she lived alone with her son.
As a result of the Profile, Plaintiff received obscene telephone messages, a fax letter, email and other correspondence. Plaintiff and her son were forced to leave their home and to stay in hotels and with friends; they eventually left the Los Angeles area entirely for a period of time.
On or about November 4,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Ccbill, LLC
...§ 230(c)(1) of the CDA without any discussion of § 230(e)(2). However, since neither the Ninth Circuit nor the trial court, 207 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D.Cal.2002), performed any analysis as to whether the exclusion in § 230(e)(2) applied, it is unclear whether this issue was properly before the ......
-
Nygård, Inc. v. Kustannusosakeyhtiö Iltalehti, B192639 (Cal. App. 6/21/2007)
...bring color to the American landscape." (1 Smolla, The Law of Defamation, supra, § 2:80 at p. 2-102; see Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2002) 207 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1070-1071 [actress formerly in Star Trek series was all-purpose public figure where record established extensive hi......
-
In re Russell, Bankruptcy No. 07-11374.
...instead of making a chain of evidence argument from criminal law. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7056; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 207 F.Supp.2d 1055 (C.D.Cal.2002) (moving party could not prevail on basis of unauthenticated document); Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 275 F.Supp.2d 1100......
-
Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc.
...(2).) Other courts have held that interactive websites similar to search engines are immune. (E.g., Carafano v. Metrosplash.com Inc. (C.D.Cal.2002) 207 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1065-1066 [interactive dating services]; Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 831, fn. 7, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 [i......
-
Identity theft: myths, methods, and new law.
...but it provided 62 multiple-choice questions and a series of essay questions tailored for each [Matchmaker] community." Carafano, 207 F. Supp.2d 1055, 1066 (C.D. Cal. 2002), aff'd 339 F.3d 1119 (2003). However, the Ninth Circuit [T]he selection of the content was left exclusively to the use......
-
Public Plaintiffs and Private Facts: Should the "public Figure" Doctrine Be Transplanted Into Privacy Law?
...has created confusion in California as to the continued authority of the Kapellas factors. Compare Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1068-69 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (applying the Kapellas factors and citing to Shulman), with Michaels v. Internet Entm't Group, Inc., No. CV 98......
-
ENJOINING NON-LIABLE PLATFORMS.
...230 does not protect the defendant because the defendant appeared to be a content provider); Carafano v. Metro-splash.com, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1065-68 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (holding that [section] 230 does not protect the defendant because the defendant was a content provider in addition......
-
Bigger Fish, Deeper Pockets
...2000) (America Online); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998) (America Online). FN16. Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1065-66 (C.D. Cal. 2002). FN17. Id. FN18. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3). FN19. Gentry, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 717 (emphasis added). FN20. E.g., ......