Fair Housing Coun., San Fernando v. Roommates.Com
Decision Date | 03 April 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 04-57173.,No. 04-56916.,04-56916.,04-57173. |
Citation | 521 F.3d 1157 |
Parties | FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY; The Fair Housing Council of San Diego, individually and on behalf of the General Public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROOMMATES.COM, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley; The Fair Housing Council of San Diego, individually and on behalf of the General Public, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Roommate.Com, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant-appellee/cross-appellant.
Kelli L. Sager, Los Angeles, CA; Thomas R. Burke, San Francisco, CA; Bruce E.H. Johnson and Ambika K. Doran, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for News Organizations as amici curiae in support of the defendant-appellee.
Ann Brick, Margaret C. Crosby and Nicole A. Ozer, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, San Francisco, CA, for American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California as amicus curiae in support of neither party.
John P. Relman, Stephen M. Dane and D. Scott Chang, Relman & Dane PLLC, Washington, DC; Joseph D. Rich and Nicole Birch, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, for National Fair Housing Alliance and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as amici curiae in support of the plaintiffs-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding.D.C. No. CV-03-09386-PA.
Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, STEPHEN REINHARDT, PAMELA ANN RYMER, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, RAYMOND C. FISHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, CARLOS T. BEA, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.
We plumb the depths of the immunity provided by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA").
DefendantRoommate.com, LLC("Roommate") operates a website designed to match people renting out spare rooms with people looking for a place to live.2At the time of the district court's disposition, Roommate's website featured approximately 150,000 active listings and received around a million page views a day.Roommate seeks to profit by collecting revenue from advertisers and subscribers.
Before subscribers can search listings or post3 housing opportunities on Roommate's website, they must create profiles, a process that requires them to answer a series of questions.In addition to requesting basic information — such as name, location and email address — Roommate requires each subscriber to disclose his sex, sexual orientation and whether he would bring children to a household.Each subscriber must also describe his preferences in roommates with respect to the same three criteria: sex, sexual orientation and whether they will bring children to the household.The site also encourages subscribers to provide "Additional Comments" describing themselves and their desired roommate in an open-ended essay.After a new subscriber completes the application, Roommate assembles his answers into a "profile page."The profile page displays the subscriber's pseudonym, his description and his preferences, as divulged through answers to Roommate's questions.
Subscribers can choose between two levels of service: Those using the site's free service level can create their own personal profile page, search the profiles of others and send personal email messages.They can also receive periodic emails from Roommate, informing them of available housing opportunities matching their preferences.Subscribers who pay a monthly fee also gain the ability to read emails from other users, and to view other subscribers' "Additional Comments."
The Fair Housing Councils of the San Fernando Valley and San Diego ("Councils") sued Roommate in federal court, alleging that Roommate's business violates the federal Fair Housing Act("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and California housing discrimination laws.4Councils claim that Roommate is effectively a housing broker doing online what it may not lawfully do off-line.The district court held that Roommate is immune under section 230 of the CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), and dismissed the federal claims without considering whether Roommate's actions violated the FHA.The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.Councils appeal the dismissal of the FHA claim and Roommate cross-appeals the denial of attorneys' fees.
Section 230 of the CDA5 immunizes providers of interactive computer services6 against liability arising from content created by third parties: "No provider ... of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."47 U.S.C. § 230(c).7This grant of immunity applies only if the interactive computer service provider is not also an "information content provider," which is defined as someone who is "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the offending content.Id.§ 230(f)(3).
A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content.But as to content that it creates itself, or is "responsible, in whole or in part" for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider.Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the content it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content.8
Section 230 was prompted by a state court case holding Prodigy9 responsible for a libelous message posted on one of its financial message boards.10SeeStratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co.,1995 WL 323710(unpublished).The court there found that Prodigy had become a "publisher" under state law because it voluntarily deleted some messages from its message boards "on the basis of offensiveness and `bad taste,'" and was therefore legally responsible for the content of defamatory messages that it failed to delete.Id. at *4.The Stratton Oakmont court reasoned that Prodigy's decision to perform some voluntary self-policing made it akin to a newspaper publisher, and thus responsible for messages on its bulletin board that defamed third parties.The court distinguished Prodigy from CompuServe,11 which had been released from liability in a similar defamation case because CompuServe "had no opportunity to review the contents of the publication at issue before it was uploaded into CompuServe's computer banks."Id.;seeCubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc.,776 F.Supp. 135, 140(S.D.N.Y.1991).Under the reasoning of Stratton Oakmont, online service providers that voluntarily filter some messages become liable for all messages transmitted, whereas providers that bury their heads in the sand and ignore problematic posts altogether escape liability.Prodigy claimed that the "sheer volume" of message board postings it received — at the time, over 60,000 a day — made manual review of every message impossible; thus, if it were forced to choose between taking responsibility for all messages and deleting no messages at all, it would have to choose the latter course.Stratton Oakmont,1995 WL 323710 at *3.
In passing section 230, Congress sought to spare interactive computer services this grim choice by allowing them to perform some editing on user-generated content without thereby becoming liable for all defamatory or otherwise unlawful messages that they didn't edit or delete.In other words, Congress sought to immunize the removal of user-generated content, not the creation of content: H.R.Rep. No. 104-458(1996)(Conf.Rep.), as reprinted in1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10(emphasis added).12Indeed, the section is titled "Protection for `good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material" and, as the Seventh Circuit recently held, the substance of section 230(c) can and should be interpreted consistent with its caption.Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. craigslist, Inc.,516 F.3d 666, ____(7th Cir.2008)(quotingDoe v. GTE Corp.,347 F.3d 655, 659-60(7th Cir.2003)).
With this backdrop in mind, we examine three specific functions performed by Roommate that are alleged to violate the Fair Housing Act and California law.
1.Councils first argue that the questions Roommate poses to prospective subscribers during the registration process violate the Fair Housing Act and the analogous California law.Councils allege that requiring subscribers to disclose their sex, family status and sexual orientation "indicates" an intent to discriminate against them, and thus runs afoul of both the FHA and state law.13
Roommate created the questions and choice of answers, and designed its website registration process around them.Therefore, Roommate is undoubtedly the "information content provider" as to the questions and can claim no immunity for posting them on its website, or for forcing subscribers to answer them as a condition of using...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
- Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc.
- McCall v. Zotos
- Albert v. Ragland
- Godaddy.Com, LLC v. Toups
-
Gun Sales Platform Seeks Reversal of Ruling That Undermines Protections for Website Owners
...threatened with tort liability in Wisconsin for their design and operation will be forced to defend those cases on substantive grounds, such as lack of causation and lack of duty. Leah Feinman Ashley Kissinger
Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)—that the website does not have Section 230 immunity for claims arising from its design. No such situation applies in this Although the decision is precedential only in Wisconsin state courts, most websites do not have... -
Service Provider's Intent in Removing Positive Reviews Irrelevant in Assessing Availability of CDA Section 230 Protection
...or speaker of information provided by a third party. Decisions to remove or reorder user content fall within the publisher’s “traditional editorial functions,” he concluded, citing, e.g.,
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court also rejected the theory that Yelp! created the overall “star” reviews of businesses, which were derived from aggregating the ratings of individual reviews, finding that the aggregation... -
Sixth Circuit Vacates Lower Court Judgment And Awards Website Operator Immunity
...states that "development" as interpreted under the CDA refers "not merely to augmenting the content generally, but to materially contributing to its alleged unlawfulness." See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
521 F.3d 1157(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). More precisely, a material contribution to the alleged illegality of the content is tantamount to being responsible for what makes the content allegedly unlawful. Additionally, the Jones II court "expressly decline[d]"... -
Mexico's Telecommunications' Reform Ready To Be Signed By President Peña Nieto
...which provides a safe harbor against laws that might otherwise hold providers that host third-party speech liable for what users publish therein (see Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Rommate.com,LLC
521 F.3d 1157(9th Cir. 2008); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.1997); Ben Ezra, Weinstein & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir.2000); Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir.2003); Batzel v. Smith,...
-
Free Speech
...whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.”). 67. See, e.g ., Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
521 F.3d 1157, 1164–65 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 68. See Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 878 (2012) (holding that the First Amendment does not “make[] the public domain . . . a territory that works may never exit”); Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186,... -
Picking up the Pieces: Finding Unity after the Communications Decency Act Section 230 Jurisprudential Clash
...approach will exist only as a minority view. However, because of its unfavorable consequences, plaintiffs repeatedly 250. See supra notes 167, 169. 251 . See, e.g. , Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
521 F.3d 1157, 1165 –69 (9th Cir. 2008) (not permitting website to encourage illegal content); Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1106–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (not permitting website to apply immunity to liability for subsequent promises regardingaway the debris, and recognize the legacy of the Zeran –publisher approach. Ryan French ∗ Ninth Circuit in Roommates.com , which was itself an en banc decision, also binding on the entire Ninth Circuit. See Roommates.com , 521 F.3d 1157. 296. See Barnes , 570 F.3d at 1105. 297 . See 141 C ONG . REC. 22,045−46 (1995) (statement of Rep. Wyden) (recognizing the importance of a vibrant Internet and the impossibility of charging open websites with controlling content).interpretation in the case 66. Courts have had little trouble accepting this proposition. See, e.g ., FTC v. Accusearch, Inc., 570 F.3d 1187, 1197 (10th Cir. 2009); Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). 67. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 861 (1997). 68 . ACLU v. Reno, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1617 (E.D. Pa. 1996). The Supreme Court eventually affirmed the same district court’s findi ng of the unconstitutionality... -
Amazon's Invincibility: the Effect of Defective Third-party Vendors' Products on Amazon
...the battery itself, Amazon's involvement in the sale of same, and Amazon's guarantee regarding its condition, regardless of how the battery was posted on Amazon's website").103. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
521 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 n.15 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (explaining that the Internet's "vast reach into the lives of millions is exactly why [the court] must be careful not to exceed the scope of the immunity provided by Congress and thus give... -
Business Use of Social Media Networks-"copyright Liability Risk and Other Concerns
...property laws" as used in the CDA to mean federal intellectual property laws and upholding CDA immunity for unfair competition and false advertising claims). 33. SeeFair Housing Counsel of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,
521 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc plurality decision). 34. The social media network operator must qualify as an "online service provider" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and as an "information content provider" under...