Google not liable for anonymous negative business reviews posted in its online business directory
How later courts described this case
- Google not liable for anonymous negative business reviews posted in its online business directory
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY BLACK, DBA Cal Bay No. 10-16992
Construction; HOLLI BEAM-BLACK,
DBA Castle Roofing, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-02381-CW
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011 **
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gary Black and Holli Beam-Black appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action arising from an anonymous negative review of
their business posted on Google, Inc.’s online business directory. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393
F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as precluded by
section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) because plaintiffs
seek to impose liability on Google for content created by a third party. See Fair
Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157,
1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Section 230 of the CDA immunizes providers of
interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third
parties . . . .”); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.
2003) (“Through [section 230 of the CDA], Congress granted most Internet
services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so
long as the information was provided by another party.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’
post-judgment requests for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration); Lopez v.
Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435-36 (9th Cir. 1983) (setting forth standard of review
and criteria for evaluating a stay pending appeal).
Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
2 10-16992
Plaintiffs’ request to correct this court’s docket is granted. In accordance
with this court’s order dated March 21, 2011, the Clerk shall correct docket entry
number 15 to reflect the filing of plaintiffs’ opening brief received on December
20, 2010, instead of plaintiffs’ opening brief received on January 3, 2011.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-16992