Golden Gate University Law Review


Part I of this Note examines the factual and procedural history of Dyroff and discusses the Ninth Circuit’s application of § 230 immunity in the case. Part II outlines the history of the CDA and examines how the federal courts have interpreted § 230 immunity leading up to its application in Dyroff. Part III discusses judicial interpretation of the scope of § 230 immunity. Lastly, Part IV argues that the Ninth Circuit correctly applied the law in the Dyroff decision, but failed to adequately define the term content-neutral. Further, by not defining what falls within the scope of content-neutral, the Ninth Circuit’s holding implicitly immunizes any manipulation of third-party content facilitating communication that does not materially contribute to the content at issue. The broad shield of § 230 immunity, which was necessary for growth and development during the Internet’s infancy, is antiquated and should be narrowed by Congress to foster greater accountability to prevent tragedies like Dyroff from recurring.