Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of Internet Law's Most Important Judicial Decision
Introducing a series of essays curated by Eric Goldman and Jeff Kosseff about the seminal internet law case Zeran v. AOL.
November 10, 2017 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
Many factors contributed to the Internet's growth over the past 25 years, but we'd like to highlight an underappreciated catalyst. In 1996, Congress enacted a law, 47 U.S.C. §230, to immunize websites from liability for third-party content. Section 230 is an “Internet exceptionalist” law; Congress made the liability rules for online content different from, and more favorable than, the rules for offline content.
Section 230's immunity from liability for third-party content has provided the foundation for the Internet we know today. Each of the top 10 U.S. websites relies heavily on third party content and, in turn, §230.
Editor's Note: This is a collection of essays submitted by internet law scholars and attorneys about Section 230 and the legacy of Zeran v. AOL. Continue scrolling down for links to the full articles.
However, the scope of §230's immunity wasn't necessarily clear from Congress' words, which are characteristically inscrutable. Instead, §230's implications first became clear from the first appellate court opinion interpreting it, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Zeran v. AOL.
The Zeran case involved a pernicious cyber-harassment attack. An unknown perpetrator posted inflammatory messages to AOL purporting to be from Zeran, which prompted outraged readers to bombard Zeran with angry phone calls. The Fourth Circuit concluded that §230 protected AOL from liability for publishing the inflammatory messages.
The Zeran case interpreted §230 quite broadly, providing liability immunity even when online publishers exercise editorial control over third party content, and even when the online publisher fails to respond to takedown notices. Due to its timing and its breadth, the Zeran opinion had an enormous influence on subsequent courts' interpretations of §230, leading them to apply the statutory immunity expansively across a wide range of circumstances.
Together, §230 and the Zeran ruling helped create a trillion-dollar industry centered around user-generated content. Because of its influence on such a key issue, the Zeran ruling is widely considered the most important Internet Law ruling ever.
It is also a controversial opinion, and debates about the ruling's conclusion and implications continue to this day. Indeed, Congress is currently considering making its first major substantive reduction to §230's immunity, and much of the debate over these proposals revisits the mid-1990s' policy debates over how best to reduce anti-social behavior online. Despite the passage of time and evolution of technology, the underlying policy questions remain as fresh and important as they were two decades ago.
Zeran was decided 20 years ago—on Nov. 12, 1997. To commemorate this anniversary, we asked nearly two dozen experts in Internet Law to share their thoughts about the case. We invited authors with normative views that span the §230 debate, so the group of authors includes both fans and opponents of the Zeran ruling and §230 generally.
Their essays generally fit into two categories. Some essays take a historical approach, explaining how we got §230 or the Zeran ruling. The other essays discuss the legacy and impact of the Zeran ruling over the past two decades, some enthusiastically celebrating the developments and others issuing stinging criticisms and calls for reform.
We learned a lot from this collection of essays, and we hope you will too.
“'Zeran v. AOL' and Its Inconsistent Legacy” by Ian Ballon
“Policy Architecture and Internet Freedom” by Jerry Berman
“Sex, Scandal and Intermediary Liability: Imagining Life Without 'Zeran v. AOL'” by Hillary Brill
“How the Scam Artists at Stratton Oakmont Made 'Zeran' Possible and Unwittingly Saved the Internet” by Robert J. Butler
“Serendipity and Internet Law: How the 'Zeran v. AOL' Landmark Almost Wasn't” by Patrick J. Carome and Cary A. Glynn
“20 Years of Protecting Intermediaries: Legacy of 'Zeran' Remains a Critical Protection for Freedom of Expression Online” by Cindy Cohn and Jamie Williams
“How the Supreme Court Ignored the Lesson of 'Zeran' and Screwed Up Copyright Law on the Internet” by Roger Allan Ford
“Moral Hazard on Stilts: 'Zeran's' Legacy” by Mary Anne Franks
“The Possible Redundancy of §230” by Brian L. Frye
“The First Hard Case: 'Zeran v. AOL' and What It Can Teach Us About Today's Hard Cases” by Cathy Gellis
“Who Cyber-Attacked Ken Zeran, and Why?” by Eric Goldman
“No ESC” by James Grimmelmann
“The Satellite Has No Conscience: §230 in a World of 'Alternative Facts'” by Laura A. Heymann
“The Non-Inevitable Breadth of the 'Zeran' Decision” by Samir C. Jain
“The Judge Who Shaped the Internet” by Jeff Kosseff
“Zeran's Failed Lawsuit Against an Oklahoma Radio Station” by Robert Nelon
“The Chilling Effect Claims in 'Zeran v. AOL'” by Jonathon W. Penney
“'Zeran v. America Online' and the Development of Trolling Culture” by Aaron Schwabach
“'Zeran v. AOL': The Anti-Circumvention Tool” by Maria Crimi Speth
“The UK's Broad Rejection of the §230 Model” by Gavin Sutter
“'AOL v. Zeran': The Cyberlibertarian Hack of §230 Has Run Its Course“ by Olivier Sylvain
“CDA 230 Then and Now: Does Intermediary Immunity Keep the Rest of Us Healthy?” By Jonathan Zittrain
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Nothing Is Good for the Consumer Right Now': Experts Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Updated Real Estate Commission Policies
FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Most Noncompetes, but Immediate Legal Challenges Ensue
6 minute readCalif. Employers On Tight Deadline to Comply With New Workplace Violence Prevention Law
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.