Jones v. Dirty World Entm't Recordings LLC
Issue
Whether TheDirty.com and its operator Nik Richie materially contributed to the defamatory content of two user-submitted posts about the plaintiff such that § 230(c)(1) immunity did not apply.
What Happened
TheDirty.com was a user-generated gossip website that received approximately 600,000 visits per day and 18 million per month. The site allowed anonymous third-party users to submit "dirt" — text, photographs, or video about any subject — alongside which the site's operator, Nik Richie (also known as "Dirty Sanchez"), posted his own distinct editorial commentary before publishing the submissions. The vast majority of content came from third-party users. Sarah Jones — a Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader and high school teacher — was the subject of two posts submitted by anonymous users. The first alleged she had engaged in sexual activity with all members of the Bengals; the second alleged she had contracted sexually transmitted infections. Richie added comments to both posts but did not originate the allegations. Jones sued for defamation and related torts. The district court denied § 230 immunity and the jury returned a verdict of $38,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Richie and Dirty World appealed. The Sixth Circuit — deciding the issue for the first time — formally adopted the Ninth Circuit's material contribution standard from Roommates.com. Judge Gibbons held that to lose § 230 immunity, a defendant must have materially contributed to the unlawfulness of the specific content at issue. General solicitation of edgy, embarrassing, or salacious content — even running a site that explicitly invites users to submit "dirt" — does not constitute material contribution to any particular defamatory post. Because Richie's editorial comments did not contribute to the falsity or defamatory character of the user-submitted allegations about Jones, § 230(c)(1) barred the claims. The court reversed and entered judgment for defendants.
Why It Matters
The Sixth Circuit's leading § 230 decision, formally adopting the material contribution standard and clarifying what it requires. A platform must do something specifically to shape or facilitate the unlawful character of the particular content at issue — general encouragement of harmful user submissions is not enough. The case sets a high bar for defeating § 230 under the material contribution theory and remains the definitive Sixth Circuit authority on the scope of platform immunity.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?