The decisions most often relevant to negative content online: who is responsible, when a court can order removal, how anonymous authors are protected, and where opinion ends and defamation begins.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · 2014
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
740 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2014)
A blogger accused a financial firm and its principal of fraud in online posts and a jury awarded $2.5 million. The Ninth Circuit held that a blogger writing about a matter of public concern has the same First Amendment protection as traditional media, that a private-figure plaintiff must prove at least negligence, and that the jury had been instructed wrongly. The verdict was partly reversed.
Why it matters here: Anyone who posts online, not only journalists, gets the benefit of the fault and falsity requirements. A negative post is not defamatory merely because it is harsh or unwelcome.
Court case · California Court of Appeal, Sixth District · 2008
Krinsky v. Doe 6
159 Cal.App.4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
A company executive tried to unmask an anonymous poster who had insulted her on a Yahoo! message board. The court held that a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of a valid claim before an identity is disclosed, and found that the crude statements were non-actionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole. The subpoena was quashed.
Why it matters here: Insults and exaggeration on a forum rarely meet the bar for unmasking. Comments of this kind are usually dealt with through the platform's rules, not a lawsuit.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · 2008
Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, LLC
521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
A roommate-matching site required users to answer questions that allegedly breached housing-discrimination law. The en banc court held that a site that helps develop the unlawful content itself loses Section 230 immunity for that content, while passively hosting users' own words stays immune.
Why it matters here: It marks the limit of Section 230. A platform that merely hosts a community's posts is treated as a host, which is why the route to removal runs through its rules and reporting tools.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · 2009
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.
570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)
An ex-boyfriend posted fake profiles of Cecilia Barnes. Yahoo promised to take them down and did not. The Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 barred a negligence claim, but allowed a promissory-estoppel claim to go forward because Yahoo had made a specific promise to remove the content.
Why it matters here: Platforms are shielded from claims about what users post, but a clear promise to remove content can create separate obligations. Keep a record of every reply you receive from a platform.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · 2014
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC
755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014)
A gossip website published user submissions about a teacher and added a comment of its own. The Sixth Circuit adopted the "material contribution" test and held that the site owner did not become the developer of the posts merely by selecting them, commenting on them or encouraging submissions.
Why it matters here: Even a site built on gossip stays immune for what users send in. The poster and the platform's own rules are the practical routes, not a claim against the host.
Court case · European Court of Human Rights · 2015 and 2016
Delfi AS v. Estonia and MTE v. Hungary
App. no. 64569/09 (ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 2015); App. no. 22947/13 (ECtHR, 2016)
In Delfi the Court held that a commercial news portal could be held liable for clearly unlawful hate-speech comments it failed to remove promptly, without breaching freedom of expression. In MTE the Court found a violation of Article 10 where a site was held liable for vulgar but not unlawful comments criticising a business's conduct.
Why it matters here: In Europe, platforms can be pressed to act on manifestly unlawful content, but crude criticism of businesses is protected. The line is between unlawful content and content that is merely unwelcome.
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · 2024
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
603 U.S. 707 (2024)
The Court considered Texas and Florida laws restricting how large social media platforms moderate content. It sent the cases back for further analysis, while explaining that when a platform selects, orders and removes content in its feeds, it is engaged in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.
Why it matters here: Platforms have a protected role in deciding what stays on their sites. That supports why a ban or removal decision is the platform's to make, and why an appeal is a request to that platform, not a legal right in most cases.
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · 2023
Counterman v. Colorado
600 U.S. 66 (2023)
A man sent a woman a large number of unwanted Facebook messages and was convicted of stalking under an objective "reasonable person" standard. The Court held that to punish "true threats", the state must prove the speaker had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the statements. Recklessness is enough.
Why it matters here: Online threats can be pursued without proof of a specific intent to carry them out. A documented pattern of warnings and replies helps show that the speaker was aware of how the messages would be received.
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · 2015
Elonis v. United States
575 U.S. 723 (2015)
Anthony Elonis posted violent, rap-style messages on Facebook about his estranged wife and others. The Court held that a conviction under the federal threats statute (18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) cannot rest on how a reasonable person would see the words alone, and that a mental state is required. It did not decide whether recklessness suffices.
Why it matters here: Whether a post counts as a criminal threat depends on the speaker's state of mind as well as the words. For a platform report, the rules on threats and harassment are usually the faster tool.
Court case · Court of Justice of the European Union · 2019
Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)
Case C-507/17 (CJEU, 24 September 2019)
France's data regulator wanted Google to delist results on every version of its search engine worldwide. The Court held that EU law requires delisting on the versions of the search engine for all EU Member States, with measures to discourage EU users from reaching the results, but does not currently require delisting worldwide.
Why it matters here: A successful delisting request normally changes what people in the EU see, not what everyone sees. Removing the source post is more complete than delisting it.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · 2004
Rossi v. Motion Picture Association of America
391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004)
The MPAA sent a takedown notice to the host of a website that said it offered movie downloads. The site's owner argued that the MPAA never checked. The Ninth Circuit held that the "good faith belief" a sender needs is a subjective one, so the sender was not liable without actual knowledge that the claim was false.
Why it matters here: It sets a high bar for challenging a wrongful takedown notice. That is why a notice should be accurate to begin with, and why wrongful notices are hard to punish.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · 1997
Zeran v. America Online, Inc.
129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
After anonymous posts attached Kenneth Zeran's phone number to offensive T-shirt ads, he notified AOL but the posts stayed up. The Fourth Circuit held that Section 230 bars liability for third-party content even after the platform is notified.
Why it matters here: The leading early ruling on platform immunity. It explains why "notify the site and sue if they refuse" is not a reliable strategy in the United States.
Court case · California Supreme Court · 2018
Hassell v. Bird
5 Cal.5th 522 (2018)
A law firm won a default judgment over defamatory reviews and a court order directing Yelp to remove them. In a 4 to 3 decision the California Supreme Court held that Section 230 prevented the court from ordering Yelp to remove the reviews; the judgment against the reviewer stood.
Why it matters here: Even a court win against the author may not compel a platform to delete the content. That is why a platform's own rules and reporting process matter so much.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · 2022
Does v. Reddit, Inc.
51 F.4th 1137 (9th Cir. 2022)
Victims sued Reddit over child sexual abuse material posted by users. The Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 shielded Reddit from the claims, reading the statute's sex-trafficking exception (FOSTA) narrowly. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case in 2023.
Why it matters here: The clearest federal appellate ruling involving Reddit itself: Reddit is treated as a host of user content, not the publisher of it.
Court case · New Jersey and Delaware courts · 2001 and 2005
Dendrite International v. Doe No. 3, and Doe v. Cahill
775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2001); 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)
These courts set the modern tests for unmasking anonymous online speakers. A plaintiff must notify the speaker, identify the exact statements, and produce real evidence supporting the claim before a court will order an identity disclosed.
Why it matters here: Anonymous authors of negative posts are not simply identifiable on request. Courts require a substantial showing first, and this is a job for a lawyer, not a removal service.
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · 1990
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
497 U.S. 1 (1990)
The Court declined to create a blanket constitutional privilege for "opinion", but confirmed that statements which cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts, or which cannot be proven false, are protected.
Why it matters here: "This company is terrible" is opinion. "This company stole my deposit" is a factual claim that can be true or false. The second can be challenged; the first generally cannot.
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · 1974
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
418 U.S. 323 (1974)
The Court held that states may let private individuals recover for defamation on a showing of fault, while limiting presumed and punitive damages unless actual malice is shown. It draws the line between public figures and private people.
Why it matters here: Whether you are a public figure changes how hard a defamation claim is. Founders and executives of well-known companies are often treated as public figures for related statements.
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · 1964
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Public officials who sue for defamation must prove "actual malice": that the statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true.
Why it matters here: The foundation of why criticism of public figures is so hard to take down through legal routes.
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · 2015
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015)
The Ninth Circuit held that copyright owners must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice. A notice sent without that consideration can support a misrepresentation claim under Section 512(f).
Why it matters here: A DMCA notice is a legal statement. Careless or pretextual notices carry real risk, so every notice should be checked before it is sent.
Court case · Court of Justice of the European Union · 2014
Google Spain SL v. AEPD and González
Case C-131/12 (CJEU, 13 May 2014)
The Court held that a search engine operator is responsible for the personal data in results it lists, and that individuals can ask for links to be removed when the data is inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive, unless there is a public interest such as the person's role in public life.
Why it matters here: The basis of the "right to be forgotten" in search results across the EU. It acts on search listings, not on the underlying Reddit page.