Blotter Vs Google Case Study
Goddard VS Google
Thomas Lindner
BUL3564 - Eldridge
Issue:
Whether Google was negligent in the act of knowingly allowing or aiding managed security service providers to commit fraud, violating consumer protection. In addition, whether Google should have prevented such activity, even if aware of it.
Facts:
Identify facts FOR issue: In using Google’s search engine, malicious websites are made available, leading the consumer vulnerable to phishing or other malicious, fraudulent content. Google generates revenue by using online advertising and specifically, uses a program called “AdWords” to present advertisements to consumer searches.
Identify facts AGAINST issue: Google acts as an interactive computer services or internet content …show more content…
Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003)
Fair Housing Council, 521 F.3d at 1174
Decision/Holding:
The court held that 47 U.S.C Section 230(c) of the CDA bars Google from being held liable for content that a third party MSSP publishes. In addition, case law was used in reference to Carafano v. Metosplash.com. In this case, immunity applies that must favor the service provider due to the provider does not create the content.
Rationale:
The rationale was based on 47 U.S.C Section 230(c), which, again, immunizes the internet service provider from being held liable for content that is published by an MSSP. Even though the Plaintiff claimed Google intentionally ignored it own content policy, the case still held that it is not Google responsibility to filter published web content from an MSSP. Google would have had a direct, participation in the content for 47 U.S.C Section 230(c) not to be applicable. In any event, Google’s standard, policies, and procedure would not make them liable, which is the rationale behind 47 U.S.C Section 230(c) by allowing a service provider to create a decency policy without also creating an implicit, implied liability.
Based upon this evaluation, what went …show more content…
The process would have to evolve. Assurances could be presented to assist both parties by implementing a mediator for content filtering, similar to a liability policy for digital security. This may violate certain Internet freedoms, though, so it would have to optional. In any event, the means of monetary gain would have to be removed from the equation. MSSPs should be regulated to a higher, federal standard. Federal regulations should be mandated to have these MSSPs register with the FCC and their corresponding internet service provider. Periodic auditing should be required to validate fair business is not being violated. A tighter lease is required to help further minimize the fraudulent, malicious website or web advertisements on the Internet. Content filtering should not be the responsibility of the internet service provider. It’s what helps maintain our Internet
Thomas Lindner
BUL3564 - Eldridge
Issue:
Whether Google was negligent in the act of knowingly allowing or aiding managed security service providers to commit fraud, violating consumer protection. In addition, whether Google should have prevented such activity, even if aware of it.
Facts:
Identify facts FOR issue: In using Google’s search engine, malicious websites are made available, leading the consumer vulnerable to phishing or other malicious, fraudulent content. Google generates revenue by using online advertising and specifically, uses a program called “AdWords” to present advertisements to consumer searches.
Identify facts AGAINST issue: Google acts as an interactive computer services or internet content …show more content…
Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003)
Fair Housing Council, 521 F.3d at 1174
Decision/Holding:
The court held that 47 U.S.C Section 230(c) of the CDA bars Google from being held liable for content that a third party MSSP publishes. In addition, case law was used in reference to Carafano v. Metosplash.com. In this case, immunity applies that must favor the service provider due to the provider does not create the content.
Rationale:
The rationale was based on 47 U.S.C Section 230(c), which, again, immunizes the internet service provider from being held liable for content that is published by an MSSP. Even though the Plaintiff claimed Google intentionally ignored it own content policy, the case still held that it is not Google responsibility to filter published web content from an MSSP. Google would have had a direct, participation in the content for 47 U.S.C Section 230(c) not to be applicable. In any event, Google’s standard, policies, and procedure would not make them liable, which is the rationale behind 47 U.S.C Section 230(c) by allowing a service provider to create a decency policy without also creating an implicit, implied liability.
Based upon this evaluation, what went …show more content…
The process would have to evolve. Assurances could be presented to assist both parties by implementing a mediator for content filtering, similar to a liability policy for digital security. This may violate certain Internet freedoms, though, so it would have to optional. In any event, the means of monetary gain would have to be removed from the equation. MSSPs should be regulated to a higher, federal standard. Federal regulations should be mandated to have these MSSPs register with the FCC and their corresponding internet service provider. Periodic auditing should be required to validate fair business is not being violated. A tighter lease is required to help further minimize the fraudulent, malicious website or web advertisements on the Internet. Content filtering should not be the responsibility of the internet service provider. It’s what helps maintain our Internet