- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 12-15-2021
- Case #: A173133
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J., for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Aoyagi, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiff appealed a limited judgment in favor of Airbnb. On appeal, Plaintiff made two assignments of error, though only one was addressed: the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Airbnb based on a determination that Airbnb was immunized of liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA 230). Plaintiff contended that Airbnb acted as a "curator" of its website listings by creating special search categories for listings with hot tubs, and therefore was not immune from liability under CDA 230. In response, Airbnb argued that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because Plaintiff sought to hold Airbnb liable as a "publisher" of their listings, which fell within the protections of CDA 230. As long as interactive computer service providers do not act in manners that transform them into content providers, their immunity under CDA 230 is not foreclosed. Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 2008). The Court held that Airbnb's creation of special search categories, highlighting listings, adding icons to certain listings, asking targeted questions, and allowing individuals listing their property to use drop-down menus did not sufficiently transform them into a content provider so as to avail them of liability. Affirmed.