Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is “responsible, in whole or in part” for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider. Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the content it displays to the public but be subject to liability for other content.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 184 Wash. 2d 95 - J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC · 219 N.C. App. 227 - Hill v. StubHub, Inc.

2. “[b]ecause [the plaintiff] posits that [the defendant’s] manner of presenting the profiles — not the underlying profiles themselves — constitute [szc ] fraud, the [Act] does not apply.” Id. at 1263 . Insofar as this reasoning suggests that a service provider can be held liable despite the CDA simply for”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. MA Ex Rel. PK v. VILLAGE VOICE MEDIA HOLDINGS · 540 F. Supp. 2d 288 - Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc.

3. “circulat[ing] profiles of actual, legitimate former subscribers whose subscriptions had expired, thus giving the misleading impression that these individuals are still available for dates.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baldino's Lock & Key Serv., Inc. v. Google LLC · 540 F. Supp. 2d 288 - Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc.