affirming dismissal of action for injunctive relief where the defendant “is a provider of an ‘interactive computer service’ as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996”
How later courts described this case
- affirming dismissal of action for injunctive relief where the defendant “is a provider of an ‘interactive computer service’ as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PIERO A. BUGONI, No. 21-15360
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-02883-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GOOGLE, INC.; MICROSOFT
CORPORATION; YAHOO! INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Piero A. Bugoni appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and defamation
against search engine operators. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bugoni’s action because defendants
have immunity for publishing third party content under the Communications
Decency Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c); Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568
F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of action for injunctive relief
where the defendant “is a provider of an ‘interactive computer service’ as defined
in the Communications Decency Act of 1996”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15360