Craigslist Held Immune in Chicago From Fair Housing Act Lawsuit
February 28, 2007
A Chicago federal judge, in a case of first impression, has held that the congressional immunity for people who post third-party content on the Internet protects Craigslist from a Fair Housing Act (FHA) lawsuit.
Judge Amy St. Eve dismissed the FHA lawsuit on grounds that to hold Craiglist liable under the FHA would be treating the company as a “publisher” of its online content – a result forbidden by the interactive computer service provider immunity found in Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act.
Craigslist operates a Web site that permits third-party users to post notices and advertisements, such as housing rental and sale opportunities. On average, people post more than 10 million items a month on Craigslist, and that number doubles each year. The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. (CLC), a nonprofit consortium of 45 law firms with a mission to protect civil rights and eliminate discriminatory housing practices, sued after canvassing Craigslist. CLC alleged numerous unlawful postings on Craigslist that used forbidden language to indicate preferences, such as:
• “NO MINORITIES”
• “Non-women of color NEED NOT APPLY”
• “This is not in a trendy neighborhood – very Latino.”
• “Christian single straight female needed.”
• “Only Muslims apply.”
• “Apt. too small for families with children.”
The Fair Housing Act Section 3604(c) prohibits racial discrimination in housing by making it unlawful, “To make, print, or publish ... any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin ... .”
Craigslist moved to dismiss CLC’s lawsuit, arguing that Congress has afforded immunity from any type of lawsuit – including actions under the Fair Housing Act – arising from third-party content. Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act provides that “[n]o provider ... of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Craigslist argued that the broad reading of the Communications Decency Act given by the majority of courts protected Craigslist from liability for the housing advertisement, even if they were found to be discriminatory. In contrast, CLC argued that under a decision from the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the appellate court that reviews decisions from federal trial courts in Chicago, Section 230(c)(1) must be read only as definitional, and that it creates no immunity on its own.
In granting Craigslist’s motion to dismiss, the district court upheld the immunity created by Section 230(c)(1), while at the same time rejecting the arguments posited by Craiglist and CLC. The court began by examining the rationale for Section 230(c)(1) as well as provision (2) of the statutes, which allow interactive computer service providers to filter postings in good faith without classifying them as publishers potentially liable for torts. The court concluded that:
• Contrary to Craigslist’s argument, Section 230(c)(1) does not grant unlimited immunity to all causes of action arising from user-posted content. Rather, the court held, the statute only immunizes interactive service providers from lawsuits that “would require treating [them] as a publisher of third-party content.”
• Because Section 230 grants less than absolute immunity, “state legislatures may be able to enact, consistent with Section 230, initiatives that induce or require online service providers to protect the interests of third parties.”
To hold Craigslist liable under the Fair Housing Act in these circumstances, the district court held, would require that it treat Craigslist as a publisher of the allegedly unlawful advertisements. The court therefore concluded that the lawsuit was foreclosed by the congressional immunity of Section 230(c)(1).
For more information, e-mail Christina LaRosa at christina.larosa@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.