Court Lacks Authority to Force Ripoff.com to Remove Post

The subjects of defamatory statements cannot force Ripoff.com to remove the posts from the website.

A federal judge found that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) limits the ability of an aggrieved party to sue an internet host for defamatory statements posted on its website by third parties. The plaintiffs in the case attempted to circumvent this provision by suing the authors and compelling them to take down the posts. When the posters were not found, the plaintiffs attempted to enforce the court’s order against Ripoff.com.  Click here for a copy of the injunction.

The plaintiffs argued that the online agreement between the posters and the website at the time the statements were posted “demonstrates that Xcentric [the operator of Ripoff.com] is in ‘active concert or participation’ with Defendants in their violation of the injunction” requiring the posts be removed.

Ripoff.com’s terms of service include that the poster “will NOT post on ROR [Ripoff Report] any defamatory . . . material” and also provides that the poster understands “that the material will not be removed even at [the poster’s] request.” These statements, the plaintiffs argued, demonstrate that Ripoff was in active concert with the posters.

In denying the request to enforce the order against Ripoff, the court said it was “sympathetic” to the plaintiffs’ plight. “[T]hey find themselves the subject of defamatory attacks on the internet yet seemingly have no recourse to have those statements removed from public view. Nevertheless, Congress has narrowly defined the boundaries for courts to enjoin third parties, and the court does not find that Xcentric falls within those limited conscriptions based on the facts presented here.”

Blockowicz v. Williams, N.D. Illinois, No. 09-C-3955, issued December 21, 2009.