Green v. America Online, Inc.

The case began at the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, which ruled against Green. He then appealed to the Third Circuit. The circuit court affirmed the lower court ruling, reasoning that Green may have been able to file a tort claim against the John Does for both damage to his computer and emotional distress, but could not do so against AOL. The offending posts were found to be third-party "information" under Section 230, for which the service provider has no legal liability.^[2] Per precedent in Zeran v. America Online, an Internet service provider is immune from tort claims arising from the behavior of its users.^[3]

The circuit court also held that as a passive provider of a platform for third-party speech, AOL could not be considered the publisher of the content or accept the responsibilities of that role.^[2] The court also rejected Green's claim that the AOL user agreement violated his First Amendment rights because AOL is a private company and users like Green pay voluntarily to use the service.^[1]

Green attempted to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but his request for certiorari was denied.^[4]

While previous rulings had clarified that Section 230 absolved service providers from legal liability for the speech-related offenses committed by their third-party users, this ruling addressed liability for tort offenses committed by users and found that Section 230 covers that type of transgression as well.^[5] While infecting someone's computer with a virus or malware can be a cause of legal action for compensatory and punitive damages, Green would have to pursue such a case against the unknown John Does and not against the hosting service, AOL.^[6]