Carafano v. Metrosplash,.Com, Inc.

339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 profiles 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.