Yahoo! has no Obligation to Publish Information; Ask.com not Liable for Indexed Third-Party Content under CDA

Author: Jacob Heller

William Murawski, a “frequent political candidate”, brought action against a number of public and private entities in connection with the September, 2006 New York election for Governor. Covered here are Murawski’s suits against Yahoo! Inc. and IAC/Interactive Corp. (IAC), who own of Ask.com. Plaintiff claims these defendants undermined his “Master Election Plan” to be elected governor: Yahoo! Inc. did not permit him to post email messages to Yahoo! Groups that he belonged to, and IAC allegedly associated his name with the Communist Party in Ask.com’s search results page. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court granted summary judgment on each of Murawski’s claims.

Murawski argued that Yahoo! Inc. violated his First Amendment right to free speech by not permitting his messages to be posted to their groups. The court rejected this argument, noting that Yahoo! Inc. is a private, for-profit company that is not acting under color of state law, and so is not subject to constitutional free speech guarantees. The court also rejected Murawski’s argument that Yahoo! Inc. is a state actor because it benefited from early public funding in the development of the internet.

Murawski’s action against IAC was to remove Politics1.com from Ask.com’s directory because a posting by that website, when displayed in Ask.com’s search results page, made it appear as if Murawski was a member of the Communist Party. The court found that these claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. §230. The CDA provides that an “interactive computer service” will not be treated as a publisher or speaker of information provided by a third party. Finding that Ask.com falls within the CDA’s definition of “interactive service provider”, it can therefore not be held liable for any statements made on Politics1.com. The court further finds that Ask.com, as a publisher, can decide whether or not it will remove content from the site. The court therefore granted IAC motion for dismissal.