Liability And User Generated Content

Social media platforms and applications are dependentcontexts and on numerous legal theories, including
upon communal participation.  Members of theposting of:
community share everything from names, professions- Defamatory information;
and scholastic and corporate affiliations to names and- Opinions;
photos of family and friends as well as- Private information;
up-to-the-minute updates on current events.  Little is- False information;
too personal on social media, and the greater the- Pornographic information;
extent of the sharing the greater the personal reward- Harassing commentary; and,
for all involved.- Discriminatory and/or illegal advertising.
As in the non-Internet world, people often do and say 
things that are not always appropriate - whetherSection 230, however, is not absolute protection.  For
intentional or not.  Examples include a personal opinion,example, plaintiffs have successfully argued in a
a piece of confidential information about oneself, one'shandful of cases that an "interactive computer service"
company or an acquaintance.  Such communicationwas not entitled to Section 230 immunity because the
can take the form of a written comment, photos,person or entity in question was an "information
videos or other form of communication.  The result ofcontent provider" with respect to the information at
these communications can result in claims ofissue, thereby failing the third test noted above. 
defamation, incorrect statements of fact, harassment,Notwithstanding certain plaintiff successes, generally
etc. the social media operator is protected against liability
Unfortunately for social media operators, thosefor postings made by others so long as the operator
adversely affected and their representatives tend todoes not contribute in whole or in part, in the creation
include social media operators on the short list ofor development of the content and provides a
culpable parties typically based upon some form ofmechanism for detecting objectionable content.
contributory negligence.  Fortunately for social mediaAs such, in order for social media operators to obtain
operators operating in the U.S., there exists some formthe maximum protection under Section 230 of the
of protection to the extent that certain procedures areCDA, the operator should strictly adhere to the
maintained.following:
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT- Do not alter any contribution of user-generated
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ofcontent.  To the extent that user-generated content is
1996 is a landmark piece of Internet legislation. repackaged - no matter how insignificantly, the social
Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides immunity frommedia operator potentially voids one of the three tests
liability to providers and users of an "interactiveand risks exposure.  Competent legal counsel should
computer service" that publishes information providedopine on the risk to the social media operator to the
by others (e.g., user-generated content).  Courtsextent that any user-generated content is repackaged
generally apply the following three-prong test toor reformatted.
determine whether a defendant is subject to the 
protections afforded by Section 230. - Maintain the ability for users to alert the operator of
1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of anquestionable content.  Users should at all times be
"interactive computer service;"provided with the ability to report user-generated
2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff mustcontent that violates the terms of use or is generally
treat the defendant as a "publisher or speaker" of theconsidered offensive or specifically offensive. 
harmful information at issue; and,Additionally, users should be provided with the ability to
3. The information must be "provided by anotherpromptly delete user-generated content that is directly
information content provider," (i.e., the defendant mustposted to their profiles or personal space within the
not be the information content provider of the harmfulsocial media platform.
information at issue). 
This section of the CDA was enacted to enhance- Maintain formal policies and procedures for
free speech by making it unnecessary for Internetaddressing complaints of questionable content.  The
service providers and other service providers to undulypolicies should include both external terms of use
restrict customers' actions for fear of being foundpolicies and internal policies and procedures for the
legally liable for customers' conduct.  This lawtimely management of complaints.  Periodic audits and
effectively protects social media operators since itcompliance with recommended corrective actions
covers computer services that involve user-generatedshould be performed and well documented to serve
content  as support in the event of legal action.
As a result of its effective protections, Section 230 is 
considered quite controversial because courts have- The Terms of Use should explicitly state that the
interpreted Section 230 as providing complete immunityuser is fully responsible and liable for any legal action
to Internet service providers and other serviceattributed to their user generated content and the TOU
providers with regard to torts committed by their users.should include indemnification language that
 Critics of Section 230 are primarily concerned with itscontractually indemnifies the social media operator as
effectiveness at leaving victims with no hope of reliefa result of user-generated content.  Any subsequent
in instances where the true tortfeasors cannot bechanges to the TOU should require the user to accept
identified or are judgment proof. the changes prior to permitting the user access to the
Courts have upheld Section 230 in a variety of factualsocial media platform.