Jones v. Dirty World Entm't Recordings LLC

• Decision Date: 16 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–5946.,13–5946.
• Parties: Sarah JONES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants, Hooman Karamian, aka Nik Richie, aka Corbin Grimes; Dirty World, LLC, dba thedirty.com, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

755 F.3d 398

Sarah JONES, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants,Hooman Karamian, aka Nik Richie, aka Corbin Grimes; Dirty World, LLC, dba thedirty.com, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 13–5946.

United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.

Argued: May 1, 2014.

Decided and Filed: June 16, 2014.

ARGUED: David S. Gingras, Gingras Law Office, PLLC, Phoenix, Arizona, for Appellants. Christopher D. Roach, Eric C. Deters & Partners, P.S.C., Independence, Kentucky, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David S. Gingras, Gingras Law Office, PLLC, Phoenix, Arizona, Alexander C. Ward, Alexis B. Mattingly, Huddleston Bolen, LLP, Ashland, Kentucky, for Appellants. Eric C. Deters, Eric C. Deters & Partners, P.S.C., Independence, Kentucky, for Appellee. Marc J. Randazza, Randazza Legal Group, Las Vegas, Nevada, John C. Greiner, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Patrick J. Carome, Samir C. Jain, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., Junis L. Baldon, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Louisville, Kentucky, William E. Sharp, ACLU of Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky for Amici Curiae.

Before GUY, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

This case presents the issue of whether the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, bars the state-law defamation claims of plaintiff-appellee Sarah Jones. Jones was the unwelcome subject of several posts anonymously uploaded to www. The Dirty. com, a popular website operated by defendants-appellants Nik Lamas–Richie and DIRTY WORLD, LLC (“Dirty World”), and of remarks Richie posted on the site. The website enables users to anonymously upload comments, photographs, and video, which Richie then selects and publishes along with his own distinct, editorial comments. In short, the website is a user-generated tabloid primarily targeting nonpublic figures.

In response to the posts appearing on www. The Dirty. com, Jones brought an action in federal district court alleging state tort claims of defamation, libel per se, false light, and intentional inflection of emotional distress. Richie and Dirty World claimed that § 230(c)(1) barred these claims. The district court rejected this argument and denied defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, motion to revise judgment, and motion for judgment as a matter of law. The district court also denied Richie's and Dirty World's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. The case was submitted to a jury, twice. The first trial ended in a mistrial upon a joint motion. The second trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Jones for $38,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, Richie and Dirty World maintain that § 230(c)(1) barred Jones's claims.

This is a case of first impression in this circuit. In Doe v. SexSearch.com, we “explicitly reserve[d] the question of [the] scope [of the CDA] for another day.” 551 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2008). We now consider when a website is not an “information content provider” under 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) with respect to information it publishes such that § 230(c)(1) bars state-law tort claims predicated on that information.

Jones was found to be the object of defamatory content published on a user-generated, online tabloid; however, the judgment in her favor cannot stand. Under the CDA, Richie and Dirty World were neither the creators nor the developers of the challenged defamatory content that was published on the website. Jones's tort claims are grounded on the statements of another content provider yet seek to impose liability on Dirty World and Richie as if they were the publishers or speakers of those statements. Section 230(c)(1) therefore bars Jones's claims. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in favor of Jones and reverse the district court's denial of Dirty World's and Richie's motion for judgment as a matter of law with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in their favor.

I.

Richie is currently employed as the manager of DIRTY WORLD, LLC (“Dirty World”), which owns and operates the website www. The Dirty. com. Richie is also the founder of www. Dirty Scottsdale. com, which he started in March 2007. Richie created www. Dirty Scottsdale. com as a forum to post comments and observations about residents of Scottsdale who he believed warranted comment. Richie's website garnered attention from national media, and, as the site increased in popularity, it branched out to cover more than seventy different cities in the United States and Canada. The site then adopted a geographically neutral name—www. The Dirty. com. The website receives approximately six hundred thousand visits each day and eighteen million visits each month.

As the website grew, its focus and format changed. In the beginning, Richie created nearly all the content on the site, and users could not directly upload content. This is no longer true. For the past several years and currently, users of the site, who colloquially refer to themselves as “The Dirty Army,” may submit “dirt”— i.e., content that may include text, photographs, or video about any subject. Users may also post comments about the content submitted by others. The vast majority of the content appearing on www. The Dirty. com is comprised of submissions uploaded directly by third-party users.

The content submission form instructs users to “Tell us what's happening. Remember to tell us who, what, when, where, why.” The content submission form requires users to submit a title and category for their submission as well as their city or college for indexing. Submissions appear on the website as though they were authored by a single, anonymous author—“THE DIRTY ARMY.” This eponymous introduction is automatically added to every post that Richie receives from a third-party user. Many, but not all, of the submissions and commentaries appearing on the website relate to stories, news, and gossip about local individuals who are not public figures. The site receives thousands of new submissions each day. Richie or his staff selects and edits approximately 150 to 200 submissions for publication each day. The editing done to published submissions only consists of deletion. Richie or his staff briefly reviews each submission selected for publication to ensure that nudity, obscenity, threats of violence, profanity, and racial slurs are removed. Richie typically adds a short, one-line comment about the post with “some sort of humorous or satirical observation.” Richie, however, does not materially change, create, or modify any part of the user-generated submission, nor does he fact-check submissions for accuracy. Apart from his clearly denoted comments appended at the end of each submission, which appear in bold-face text and are signed “-nik,” Richie does not create any of the posts that appear on www. The Dirty. com. The bold-face text and signature are designed to distinguish editorial remarks from third-party submissions. Comments that appear in bold face and are signed “-nik” are only written and published by Richie.

Sarah Jones is a resident of northern Kentucky. Jones was a teacher at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, Kentucky, and a member of the Cincinnati BenGals, the cheerleading squad for the Cincinnati Bengals professional football team. From October 2009 to January 2010, Jones was the subject of several submissions posted by anonymous users on www. The Dirty. com and of editorial remarks posted by Richie.

First, on October 27, 2009, a visitor to www. The Dirty. com submitted two photographs of Jones and a male companion and the following post:

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, this is Sara J, Cincinnati Bengal Cheerleader. She's been spotted around town lately with the infamous Shayne Graham. She has also slept with every other Bengal Football player. This girl is a teacher too!! You would think with Graham's paycheck he could attract something a little easier on the eyes Nik!

Appearing directly beneath this post, Richie added:

Everyone in Cincinnati knows this kicker is a Sex Addict. It is no secret ... he can't even keep relationships because his Red Rocket has freckles that need to be touched constantly.—nik

Jones requested that the post be removed. Richie informed Jones that the post would not be removed.

Second, on December 7, 2009, a visitor submitted a photograph of Jones and the following post:

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, here we have Sarah J, captain cheerleader of the playoff bound cinci bengals.. Most ppl see Sarah has [ sic ] a gorgeous cheerleader AND highschool teacher.. yes she's also a teacher.. but what most of you don't know is.. Her ex Nate.. cheated on her with over 50 girls in 4 yrs.. in that time he tested positive for Chlamydia Infection and Gonorrhea.. so im sure Sarah also has both.. whats worse is he brags about doing sarah in the gym.. football field.. her class room at the school she teaches at DIXIE Heights.Appearing directly after this post, Richie remarked: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?nik”

Third, on December 9, 2009, a visitor submitted another photograph of Jones and a male companion and the following post:

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, ok you all seen the past posting of the dirty Bengals cheerleader/teacher ... well here is her main man Nate. Posted a few pics of the infected couple. Oh an for everyone saying sarah is so gorgeous check her out in these non photoshopped pics.

Appearing directly after this post, Richie added:

Cool tribal tat man. For a second yesterday I was jealous of those high school kids for having a cheerleader teacher, but not anymore.—nik

Jones sent Richie over twenty-seven emails, pleading for Richie to remove these posts from the website, to no avail. Jones's father similarly wrote to Richie, also to no avail. She then sought legal help, and her attorney informed Richie that if the posts were not removed by December 14, 2009, Jones would file suit. The...