ConsumerAffairs.com can’t be held liable for the gripes posted by...

ruling, which said sites can be liable for specifically giving users the option to take unlawful actions (WID May 16/07 p1), except that the plaintiff didn’t raise the “original content” claim in its complaint. New York-area Nemet Chevrolet claimed defamation against the site for six users’ posts making factual allegations about their experiences at the dealer, which Nemet said were false and drove away potential customers. The site is “unlawfully diverting customers and deriving a profit from misdirecting said customers,” and leading users to believe it’s a governmental agency through its name, Nemet said. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks liability because ConsumerAffairs.com is “indisputably” an interactive computer service, Judge Gerald Lee said. Nemet later submitted new materials accusing ConsumerAffairs.com of defamation by creating “titles, headings and categories” for users’ defamatory posts, with Nemet pointing to a 2004 Texas ruling that assigned liability to a gripe site that encouraged users to file class-action suits and sold “rip-off revenge” kits to use against companies. But allegations against ConsumerAffairs.com are “sufficiently distinct” from the Texas case, Lee said. Nemet can’t claim unfair competition and false advertising because “injury to goodwill” isn’t a viable claim under the Lanham Act and because only a “competitor” can claim standing. “It is clear and indisputable that the parties are not competitors,” that Nemet hasn’t alleged any threat to its trademarks by ConsumerAffairs.com, and that whatever appeared on the site was not “commercial advertising,” Lee said.