Franchisee Loses Defamation Claim, Section 230 Held to Apply
Franchisee Nemet Chevrolet lost a defamation suit against a website which posted criticism of the dealership.
Nemet Chevrolet Ltd v. ConsumerAffairs.com Inc (Dec. 29, 2009) pitted a franchisee against a website which hosted blog comments critical of the dealership sales practices. Queens (NY)-based Nemet alleged that the statements were defamatory.
While federal law customarily provides protection to the website hosting public comments, Nemet attempted to circumvent the statute by claiming that the website solicited complaints and assisted prospective litigants against Nemet.
In a brief opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the rationale and statutory language of the federal statute, and dismissed the suit. The decision marks the latest of a series of US court decisions strengthening the legal footing of website hosts. Recently many franchisors have complained about franchisee postings; here we see that the courts are following the mandate of Congress in protecting free speech.
Of course a statement which is defamatory would still be actionable as against the author of the statement. The reason that plaintiffs target the web host (such as Mr. MauMau) is that it is often difficult (if not impossible) to identify the author, and plaintiffs hope that the mere threat of legal action will force web hosts to censor comments on the internet.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Nemet ED Va Order dismissing on CDA grounds.pdf | 50.78 KB |
| Nemet v. Consumer Affairs Appellate Decision.pdf | 859.71 KB |
| Nemet v. Consumer Affairs- Motion to Dismiss.pdf | 15.36 KB |
| Nemet- Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss.pdf | 43.69 KB |
| Nemet Chevrolet - Complaint.pdf | 719.52 KB |
- Franchise topic:
- Enter Your Own Tag:
While unworthy attacks on franchisees or franchisors is abhorrent in any venue the sacrifice of free speech is considerably more abhorrent and an extremely dangerous path that could undermine the future of our society. It would seem that many don’t understand the implications that extend far beyond franchising.
In Australia Minister Conroy announced his intention to introduce “mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) –rated content” where the goal is to protect children. Admirable motivation aside; the introduction of internet censorship is repugnant to thinking people that question the effectiveness and unknown abilities and the potential consequences of such legislation.
The filtering is to be based on blacklisted URLs where the Classification Board must refuse to classify films, publications, and computer games that:
Now you can see that in its wording there will be many that will buy in without any considered interpretation of the consequences.
No one wants to deny the obvious need to protect our kids on the internet. The alternatives recommended by those opposing the new legislation are simply;
What is being suggested in Australia is that its citizens be forced to ignore the strength of the US example and follow the path of countries like China, North Korea and Burma.
The government has even failed to clarify whether the list of prohibited sites will be secret, so it will be hard to know what content the Government has effectively banned. Filtering is to be compulsory in all homes [even where there are no children] and there is no mention of an ability to sites or content removed from the prohibited list.
Dangerous and backward legislation it is and in a country where already the concept of free speech is questionable and where whistleblowers are already subjected to threat particularly when the exposure relates to government.
Was the outcome in this case inevitable in the US? I doubt that would be the case in Australia even prior to the introduction of dangerous and stoopid censorship legislation. This Court’s decision goes much further than the implications to franchising and I suspect this action may have arisen from poor legal advice. Is this a case one of America the ‘land of the free’ or the ‘land of the fee’?