Roommates.com case brief
Madeline Bahr
LA 349
9/23/2014
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, The Fair Housing Council of San Diego, individually and on behalf of the General Public v Roommates.com, LLC
I. Facts
The defendant Roommate.com, LLC operates as a website designed to match people renting out spare rooms with people looking for a place to live. The website allows member to get notifications, messaging, and create a personal profile. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and of San Diego filled in federal court against Roommate.com saying that their website violated the Fair Housing Act and California housing discrimination laws. The plaintiff argued that Roommate.com is a housing broker online doing actions that would be illegal to do off-line. Roommate.com, LLC argued that they were immune under CDA section 230.
II. Issue
Is Roommate.com LLC, immune under section 230 of the CDA? If the website is not immune, is there conflict with RHA and state real estate discrimination laws for requiring disclosure potential discrimination by requiring disclosure sexual orientation, sex, and about family life?
III. Law used The court uses section 230 of the CDA to see if Roommates.com, LLC has immunity. The court uses this law to see if this case applies to RHA and state real estate discrimination law.
IV. Reasoning
Roommate.com, LLC is classified under 230 as an “information content provider” because the website made the questions, force users to answer them in order to use the website and posted them on their website. The court came to the conclusion; Immunity through section 230 of the CDA does not protect Roommate.com, LLC. The court rationalized that since Roommate, LLC required subscribers to answer questions about sex, sexual preference, and family status that makes Roommate.com responsible in part of the content for each profile page. There is no way to opt out which makes Roommate.com not protected under immunity in section 230 of CDA. Since, the
LA 349
9/23/2014
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, The Fair Housing Council of San Diego, individually and on behalf of the General Public v Roommates.com, LLC
I. Facts
The defendant Roommate.com, LLC operates as a website designed to match people renting out spare rooms with people looking for a place to live. The website allows member to get notifications, messaging, and create a personal profile. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and of San Diego filled in federal court against Roommate.com saying that their website violated the Fair Housing Act and California housing discrimination laws. The plaintiff argued that Roommate.com is a housing broker online doing actions that would be illegal to do off-line. Roommate.com, LLC argued that they were immune under CDA section 230.
II. Issue
Is Roommate.com LLC, immune under section 230 of the CDA? If the website is not immune, is there conflict with RHA and state real estate discrimination laws for requiring disclosure potential discrimination by requiring disclosure sexual orientation, sex, and about family life?
III. Law used The court uses section 230 of the CDA to see if Roommates.com, LLC has immunity. The court uses this law to see if this case applies to RHA and state real estate discrimination law.
IV. Reasoning
Roommate.com, LLC is classified under 230 as an “information content provider” because the website made the questions, force users to answer them in order to use the website and posted them on their website. The court came to the conclusion; Immunity through section 230 of the CDA does not protect Roommate.com, LLC. The court rationalized that since Roommate, LLC required subscribers to answer questions about sex, sexual preference, and family status that makes Roommate.com responsible in part of the content for each profile page. There is no way to opt out which makes Roommate.com not protected under immunity in section 230 of CDA. Since, the