Jeffery Thomas, Ch.

22 Case (page 595) 1

Chapter 22, Cyberlaw Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. Case by Jeffery Thomas University of Southern Indiana Course: BLAW 263.001 Legal Environment Professor: Brett J. Long, J.D. April 15, 2011

Jeffery Thomas, Ch. 22 Case (page 595) 2 I. FACTS: A. Christianne Carafano is an actor who uses the stage name Chase Masterson. She has
appeared in numerous television shows like Star Trek and General Hospital. One unfortunate result of her involvement with Star Trek was the creation of a fake matchmaking profile for her. Matchmaker.com is a commercial Internet dating service. In 1999, 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 Carafano. 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? In addition, the essays indicated that she was looking for a hard and dominant man with a strong sexual appetite and that she liked sort of be being controlled by a man, in and out of bed. The profile included pictures of the Carafano, her home address, telephone number, and an email address that produced an automatic-mal reply stating, You think you are the right one? Proof it!! [sic].

B. DATE: Filed August 13, 2003 C. COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003
(339 F.3d 1119, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16548)

D. PLAINTIFF: Christianne Carafano, a/k/a Chase Masterson E. DEFENDANTS: Metrosplash.com, Inc., formerly known as Matchmaker.com, Inc. II. ISSUE: Does the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) protect Matchmaker.com from
liability?

III. RULE OF LAW: The primary law applicable in this case is the Communications Decency Act of
1996 (CDA). The CDA states that an ISP and Web hosts are not liable for information that is provided by someone else, even if it is transmitted through its service. Only content providers are liable. IV. ANALYSIS/ARGUMENT:

A. The matchmaking information was of a nature that provoked threatening and sexually
explicit phone calls to be made to Carafano, causing her and her son to subsequently have to move out of her home for several months. In 2003, Carafano took legal action against the hosting company, Matchmaker.com.

B. Excerpts from the Judges De

cision: Through [the CDA], Congress granted most Internet services immunity from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party. As a result, Internet publishers are treated differently from corresponding publishers in print, television, and radio. Congress enacted this provision for two basic policy reasons: to promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material.

Jeffery Thomas, Ch. 22 Case (page 595) 3 V. CONCLUSION: The court concluded, Despite the serious and utterly deplorable consequences that
occurred in this case, we conclude that Congress intended that service providers such as Matchmaker be afforded immunity from suit.

A. The fact that some of the content [in Carafano's fake profile] was formulated in response to
Matchmaker's questionnaire does not [make Matchmaker liable].

B. Further, the court explained that assuming Matchmaker was considered an information
content provider; the statute would still bar Carafano's claims, unless Matchmaker actually created or developed the particular information at issue. In this case, the critical information (e.g. Carafano's home address, phone number) were transmitted unaltered to profile viewers; thus, Matchmaker did not play a significant role in the relevant information.