# Piero Bugoni v. Google, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 24, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6317362

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 24, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6317362

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6317362. Public record. Not legal advice.