Yesterday, the Sixth District filed an opinion that found an employer immune from state law tort claims under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). The plaintiffs alleged that an Agilent employee had used Agilent’s computers to send threatening email messages to the plaintiffs, and sought damages from Agilent for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Agilent successfully brought a motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity under the CDA, which plaintiffs appealed.
Under the CDA, a defendant has immunity when: 1) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service; 2) the cause of action treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and 3) the information at issue is provided by another information content provider. 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1). Because plaintiffs did not dispute that the Agilent employee was the “information content provider,” the court in Delfino focused on the following two questions in its application of the CDA. First, the court asked whether Agilent was a “provider of an interactive computer service.” Second, the court asked whether plaintiffs’ state law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress treated Agilent as a publisher or speaker of the information at issue.
Addressing the first question, the court stated that it was unaware of another opinion that addressed the issue of whether a corporate computer network qualifies an “interactive computer service” under the CDA. The court first compared the approaches used by various federal circuits and California state courts, and noted that courts have broadly defined the term to encompass entities other than ISPs. The court also surveyed academic sources, and noted that several journal articles concluded that employers, like ISPs, should be covered by the CDA’s immunity provisions. Ultimately, the court found that employers who provide employees access to the internet meet the CDA’s definition of a “provider of an interactive computer service.”
Addressing the second question, the court first noted that most cases addressing the scope of CDA immunity under section 230 involve defamation. However, the court noted that some cases had applied CDA immunity to claims of intentional infliction emotional distress. In addition, the court cited a California opinion from the First District had applied CDA immunity to claims of nuisance, premises liability, and a taxpayer suit under CCP section 526a. The court found further support for the proposition that CDA immunity applies to civil claims generally. Without further elaboration, or a statement of the exact claims CDA immunity applies to, the court held that plaintiffs’ claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress treated Agilent as “a publisher or speaker of the information at issue” under the CDA.
The court’s opinion in Delfino seems part of a trend, where courts will broadly interpret the CDA’s immunity provisions in section 230 to limit plaintiffs’ ability to bring state law tort claims against any entity that provides a means for transmission of tortuous electronic communications. However, the opinion in Delfino resulted, at least in part, from the plaintiffs’ inability to provide a sufficient rebuttal to the evidence offered by Agilent in its summary judgment motion. It remains to be seen if the CDA’s immunity provisions will be applied as broadly in a case where the facts are more favorable to plaintiffs seeking to overcome an assertion of immunity under the CDA.
Congress most certainly did not intend the CDA to protect criminal behaviour and Agilent Technologies, Inc. is most certainly guilty of harboring a criminal and allowing him to flourish until he was apprehended. Had the FBI not arrested the Agilent employee there may have been a tragedy jut like in Oklahoma City.
Agilent Technologies, Inc. should be punished and I for one am glad to learn that the plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Review with the Cal Supreme Court.
As the San Jose Mercury Newspaper has repeatedly pointed out, the Cal Sixth District Court of Appeal has made bad law, bad law that I believe will be corrected by the higher court. As Speaker Pelosi has said, "the care and safety of our families depends upon it."
Posted by: MeganLaszlo | January 30, 2007 at 07:23 PM