Ripoff Report - Litigation Involving The Communications Decency Act

Litigation Involving The Communications Decency Act

According to a United States law called the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), websites like the Ripoff Report are protected from most forms of civil liability arising from user-generated content. This protection applies even if the website hosts material which is false and even if the site does not take any steps to investigate content prior to publication or remove content after receiving notice that the material is false. Protection also extends to editorial changes made by the website operator itself, as long as such editing does not alter the meaning of the original third-party content.

Because of the site's steadfast refusal to remove complaints, many lawsuits have been filed against the Ripoff Report claiming the site does not qualify for protection under the CDA or that such protection has been lost due to its alleged solicitation of defamatory content, its refusal to remove content which is false, and its alleged alteration and/or modification of reports or their titles. For a variety of reasons, none of these cases have ever reached trial.

In one frequently cited case from 2004, a federal court in Texas. held that Ripoff Report may not be entitled to CDA immunity. This part of the ruling was based on the fact that the plaintiff claimed that Ripoff Report itself created defamatory material as opposed to simply hosting material created by a third party. Based on these allegations, the court determined that CDA immunity would not apply because, "Contrary to the defendants' arguments, MCW is not seeking to hold the defendants liable for merely publishing information provided by a third party. Rather, MCW is seeking relief because the defendants themselves create, develop, and post original, defamatory information concerning ." MCW, 2004 WL 833595, *9.

Critics of the Ripoff Report sometimes claim that Ripoff Report "lost" the MCW case. However, after finding that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to overcome CDA immunity, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction and the case was dismissed on that basis. According to a summary of the case from the Citizen Media Law Project, the plaintiff "MCW appealed the ruling, but later voluntarily dismissed its appeal." More recent legal decisions involving the Ripoff Report have generally rejected the argument that MCW establishes that the site is not entitled to CDA immunity.

Other notable cases involving the Ripoff Report include the following:

• Asia Economic Institute, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC (May 4, 2011) (summary judgment granted in favor of Ripoff Report due, in part, to CDA immunity);

• Herman & Russo, P.C. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, (Feb. 14, 2011) (summary judgment granted in favor of Ripoff Report due to CDA immunity);

• Intellect Art Multimedia, Inc. v. Milewski, (N.Y.Sup. Sept. 11, 2009) (claims against Ripoff Report dismissed for failure to state a claim due to CDA immunity);

• GW Equity, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, (N.D.Tex. 2009) summary judgment entered in favor of Ripoff Report based on CDA immunity);

• Global Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, (D.Ariz. 2008) (claims against Ripoff Report dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) without leave to amend based on CDA immunity);

• Whitney Info. Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11632 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 15, 2008) (summary judgment entered in favor of Ripoff Report based on CDA immunity).