All that is required is that a provider of an “interactive computer service” take “action … to enable or make available to … others the technical means to restrict access to” material “the provider or user considers … objectionable,” a standard defendant met. According to the Court, ‘good faith’ is not a prerequisite to immunity under section 230(c)(2)(b) of the CDA. Notably, the Court holds defendant entitled to such immunity notwithstanding claims that it acted in bad faith when it so labeled plaintiff’s software. Zango provides consumers free access to online videos, games and music in exchange for their agreement to the display of sponsors’ advertisements. Wash., August 28, 2007)Ĭourt holds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) immunizes distributor of anti-virus and security software from claims of tortuous interference with contract, trade libel and unjust enrichment arising out of its distribution of software that labels plaintiff Zango’s software as malware, and enables a user to block or disable it.
0 kommentar(er)
