CARAFANO V. METROSPLASH,.COM, INC.
339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Carafano (P), identity theft victim, appealed from the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Metrosplash (D), internet matchmaker on P's claims of invasion of privacy,
defamation, negligence, and misappropriation.
FACTS: Matchmaker.com is a commercial Internet dating service. Members post anonymous
profiles and may then view profiles of other members in their area, contacting them via
electronic mail sent through the Match-maker server. Members are required to complete a
detailed questionnaire containing both multiple-choice and essay questions. In the
subsequent essay section, participants answer up to eighteen additional questions, including
'anything that the questionnaire didn't cover.' Matchmaker policies prohibit members from
posting last names, addresses, phone numbers or e-mail addresses within a profile.
Matchmaker reviews photos for impropriety before posting them but does not review the
pro-files themselves, relying instead upon participants to adhere to the service guidelines.
An unknown person using a computer in Berlin posted a 'trial' personal profile of
Christianne Carafano in the Los Angeles section of Matchmaker. The posting was without the
knowledge, consent, or permission of P. P is a popular actress. Her stage name is Chase
Masterson. Pictures of Pare widely available on the Internet, and the false Matchmaker
profile 'Chase529' contained several of these pictures. The person posting the profile
selected 'Playboy/Playgirl' for 'main source of current events' and 'looking for a one-night
stand' for 'why did you call.' The essay indicated that she was looking for a 'hard and
dominant' man with 'a strong sexual appetite' and that she 'liked sort of being controlled
by a man, in and out of bed.' There was no last name and it did not indicate P's real name
or even her stage last name, but it listed two of her movies. The ad did provide P's home
address. The profile included a contact e-mail address, cmla2000@yahoo.com, which, when
contacted, produced an automatic e-mail reply stating, 'You think you are the right one?
Proof it !!' [sic], and providing Carafano's home address and telephone number. P soon began
to receive messages responding to the profile. P received numerous phone calls, voicemail
messages, written correspondence, and e-mail from fans through her professional e-mail
account. P felt unsafe in her home, and she and her son stayed in hotels or away from Los
Angeles for several months. Eventually P learned of the source of the disturbances. P
demanded it be removed. The Matchmaker employee indicated that she could not remove the
profile immediately because Perry herself had not posted it, but the company blocked the
profile from public view on Monday morning, November 8. At 4:00 AM the following morning,
Match-maker deleted the profile. P filed a complaint in California state court against
Matchmaker and D, its corporate successors, alleging invasion of privacy, misappropriation
of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence. D removed the case to federal
district court. The district court granted Ds' motion for summary judgment in a published
opinion. The court rejected Matchmaker's argument for immunity under 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)
after finding that the company provided part of the profile content. The court also rejected
P's invasion of privacy claim on the grounds that her home address was 'newsworthy' and
that, in any case, Matchmaker had not disclosed her address with reckless disregard for her
privacy. The court rejected P's claims for defamation, negligence, and misappropriation
because P failed to show that Matchmaker had acted with actual malice. P appealed. America
Online, eBay, and two coalitions of online businesses intervened to challenge the district
court's construction of 230(c)(1). Several privacy advocacy groups and two organizations
representing entertainers intervened in support of P.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment