<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Online Liability Blog™</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlineliabilityblog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com</link>
	<description>Laws and litigation that regulate, challenge and immunize Internet websites and other online services</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:04:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
			<item>
		<title>Bloomberg liable for United Airlines&#8217; stock nosedive?</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/09/12/bloomberg-liable-for-united-airlines-stock-nosedive/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/09/12/bloomberg-liable-for-united-airlines-stock-nosedive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:58:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting post today on one of Wired&#8217;s blogs (links to a recent post at The Volokh Conspiracy) relating to the potential applicability of Section 230 to Bloomberg&#8217;s &#8220;role&#8221; in United&#8217;s free fall earlier this week.
Lots of juicy issues here, but time constraints force me to simply take this opportunity to quickly vent on a longstanding [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=153&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/09/12/bloomberg-liable-for-united-airlines-stock-nosedive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fifth Circuit issues its first Section 230 opinion</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/06/24/fifth-circuit-issues-its-first-section-230-opinion/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/06/24/fifth-circuit-issues-its-first-section-230-opinion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last month the Fifth Circuit issued its first (to my knowledge) ruling that turned on Section 230.  Affirming the lower court in Doe v. MySpace Inc., Circuit Judge Clement, writing on behalf of herself and Judges Garwood and Elrod, ruled that the statute protected MySpace from claims that it was negligent for not &#8220;instit[uting] [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=150&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/06/24/fifth-circuit-issues-its-first-section-230-opinion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>RipOffReport.com owner back in court</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/05/17/ripoffreportcom-owner-back-in-court/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/05/17/ripoffreportcom-owner-back-in-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 17:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pending litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I understand that earlier this week Ed Magedson and XCentric Ventures filed suit in an Arizona (Maricopa County) state court against Whitney Information Network and the law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P A, as well as a number of individuals &#8211; Russell Whitney, Ronald Simon, Christopher Sharp, Shawn Birken, Scott Rothstein and Steven Lippman (Case [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=148&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/05/17/ripoffreportcom-owner-back-in-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>YouTube wins on personal jurisdiction, venue arguments in Washington state</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/22/youtube-wins-on-personal-jurisdiction-venue-arguments-in-washington-state/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/22/youtube-wins-on-personal-jurisdiction-venue-arguments-in-washington-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP claims/Section 230]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction & Venue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My partner John Leonard, an avid fan of quirky YouTube videos, couldn&#8217;t resist penning a summary of this recent decision involving the website.
In an unremarkable but informative decision from the Federal Court sitting in the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Judge Franklin Burgess, on April 15 of this year, declined to subject YouTube to [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=147&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/22/youtube-wins-on-personal-jurisdiction-venue-arguments-in-washington-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit: Roommates.com largely unprotected by Section 230</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/03/ninth-circuit-roommatescom-largely-unprotected-by-section-230/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/03/ninth-circuit-roommatescom-largely-unprotected-by-section-230/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-tort claims/Section 230]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate/Fair Housing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al v. Roommate.com, LLC, issued an en banc ruling that rejects the majority of the website&#8217;s assertions of Section 230 immunity.   For purposes of this (lengthy) post, I will assume you are familiar [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=146&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/03/ninth-circuit-roommatescom-largely-unprotected-by-section-230/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Section 230 does not shield website from state IP claims</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/03/section-230-does-not-shield-website-from-state-ip-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/03/section-230-does-not-shield-website-from-state-ip-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:58:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Posts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP claims/Section 230]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-tort claims/Section 230]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.com/?p=145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guest blogger John Leonard is at it again, this time summarizing a recent federal court decision construing Section 230 in the &#8220;adult website&#8221; context.    
An interesting decision came down last week from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Doe vs. Friendfinder Network, et. al.  In that case, Judge Joseph [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=145&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/03/section-230-does-not-shield-website-from-state-ip-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Victory for ZeroBrokerFees.com in New Hampshire</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/01/victory-for-zerobrokerfeescom-in-new-hampshire/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/01/victory-for-zerobrokerfeescom-in-new-hampshire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:30:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate/Fair Housing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.com/?p=144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday Magistrate Judge James Muirhead ruled in favor of ZeroBrokerFees.com in the website&#8217;s suit challenging the applicability of the New Hampshire Real Estate Practice Act &#8211; specifically the licensure requirement &#8211; to the operation of ZeroBrokerFees.com.  The court ruled that pursuant to a statutory exemption for newspapers, ZeroBrokerFees.com was not obligated to obtain a [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=144&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/04/01/victory-for-zerobrokerfeescom-in-new-hampshire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit rules in favor of Craigslist</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/14/7th-circuit-rules-in-favor-of-craigslist/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/14/7th-circuit-rules-in-favor-of-craigslist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Non-tort claims/Section 230]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate/Fair Housing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s the decision.  It looks like my prediction was pretty much on the mark.
In an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, the 7th Circuit has affirmed Judge St. Eve&#8217;s grant of Craigslist&#8217;s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  In other words, the Court ruled that Section 230 protects Craigslist from the Fair Housing Act claims [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=142&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/14/7th-circuit-rules-in-favor-of-craigslist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>RipOffReport victorious (again) in Arizona</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/06/ripoffreport-victorious-again-in-arizona/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/06/ripoffreport-victorious-again-in-arizona/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.com/?p=141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last October I wrote about Global Royalties&#8217; suit against RipOffReport (a website operated by Xcentric Ventures), which was dismissed on Section 230 grounds. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint (still alleging defamation), Xcentric filed a motion to dismiss (still arguing Section 230 immunity), and, again, District Judge Frederick J. Martone, just last week, granted the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=141&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/06/ripoffreport-victorious-again-in-arizona/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Feds make a call to a domain name registrar, websites go dark</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/06/feds-make-a-call-to-a-domain-name-registrar-websites-go-dark/</link>
		<comments>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/06/feds-make-a-call-to-a-domain-name-registrar-websites-go-dark/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Erdman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Executive branch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prevention]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=140</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week it was a federal judge ordering a controversial website&#8217;s domain name registrar to effectively pull the plug on its customer.
This week it&#8217;s somebody at the U.S. Treasury Department directing a DNR to cut the cord to websites operated by an Englishman living in Spain, according to a piece by the New York Times&#8217; [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=onlineliabilityblog.com&blog=1308313&post=140&subd=onlineliabilityblog&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/03/06/feds-make-a-call-to-a-domain-name-registrar-websites-go-dark/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/5a32266aafc9a5e3e1429bd3e8f72cdb?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Michael</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>