Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48

87 P.3d 797

Docket No. S122953.

Barrett v. Rosenthal

California Supreme Court

Decided April 14, 2004.

California Supreme Court · decided 2004-04-14

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2019

20 state decisions

Applies 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act § 230)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2004-04-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Christopher E. Grell, Law Offices of Christopher E. Grell, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

¶2Mark Goldowitz, Law Office Mark Goldowitz, Berkeley, CA, Lisa Mija Sitkin, Roger R. Myers, Steinhart & Falconer LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant and Respondent.

¶3Petition for review granted.

¶4In addition to the issues set forth in the petition for review, the court requests the parties to include briefing on the following questions: (1) What is the meaning of the term "user" under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. section 230)? (2) For purposes of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether a user engaged in active or passive conduct?

¶5GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, BROWN and MORENO, JJ., concur.

/12/calrptr3d/48 · .json · Public domain