Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc.

Issue: Whether § 230(c)(2)(B) immunizes a cybersecurity company that blocks a competitor's software products as "potentially unwanted programs," where the plaintiff alleges the blocking was motivated by anticompetitive rather than content-quality reasons.

Enigma Software Group and Malwarebytes are both providers of software that helps internet users filter unwanted content from their computers — that is, they compete in the cybersecurity market. Malwarebytes began classifying Enigma's software products as potentially unwanted programs (PUPs) within its security platform, causing Malwarebytes users to block or quarantine Enigma's software. Enigma sued, alleging violations of New York state law and the Lanham Act's false advertising provision, and alleging that Malwarebytes's classifications were false and anticompetitively motivated — that Malwarebytes blocked Enigma's software not because it was genuinely harmful but to divert Enigma's customers to Malwarebytes. The district court dismissed, relying on an earlier Ninth Circuit decision (Zango v. Kaspersky) that had broadly construed § 230(c)(2)'s protection for filtering software. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, in an opinion by Judge Schroeder. The court held that § 230(c)(2)'s "otherwise objectionable" catchall — which protects providers that restrict material they find objectionable — does not include software that a provider finds objectionable for anticompetitive reasons. The "good faith" requirement in § 230(c)(2) forecloses immunity where the blocking decision is commercially motivated rather than based on genuine content concerns. Enigma's allegations of anticompetitive animus were sufficient to survive dismissal on the state law claims. Judge Rawlinson dissented, arguing § 230's text was broad enough to cover any objection, including a competitive one.

The leading case establishing that § 230(c)(2) immunity is not unlimited — the "good faith" requirement has teeth. Filtering tools and platforms cannot invoke § 230(c)(2) when blocking or filtering decisions are driven by anticompetitive motivations rather than genuine content-quality concerns. Important for understanding the limits of the Good Samaritan provision of § 230 in the cybersecurity and software industry context.