Browse Cases
142 resultsStratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.
Issue: Whether Prodigy was liable as a publisher of defamatory statements posted by a user, given that Prodigy voluntarily exercised editorial control over content on its boards.
Why It Matters: The direct legislative catalyst for § 230. Congress enacted § 230(c)(1) specifically to reverse the Stratton Oakmont result and eliminate the perverse incentive it created: under Stratton Oakmont, a platform that chose to moderate content assumed publisher liability, while a platform that did nothing was shielded as a mere distributor. § 230 was designed to encourage good Samaritan moderation by immunizing platforms that moderate from publisher liability.
View on CourtListener →Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.
Issue: Whether CompuServe was liable as a publisher or distributor of defamatory statements appearing in a third-party newsletter carried on its online information service.
Why It Matters: The foundational pre-§ 230 defamation case for online services. Cubby established the publisher/distributor distinction in the internet context, holding that a platform which exercises no editorial control is treated as a distributor — not a publisher — and is liable only if it knew or should have known of the defamatory content. This decision gave rise to the "Moderator's Dilemma": when the later Stratton Oakmont decision held that a platform that exercises any editorial control becomes a publisher, platforms faced a perverse incentive to do nothing. Congress enacted § 230 specifically to dissolve that dilemma.
View on CourtListener →