Part 7 - Implications of the CDA

Because none of the major terms of CDA 230(c) are defined in the law nor are the limits in any way established, it appears to be a broad, almost limitless protection from liability for providers who act in good faith to monitor their sites for objectionable material. Sounds pretty good -- you get rid of a few nasty postings that you'd probably want gone anyway, and in exchange you're given exemption from all liability for all content in your BBS! However, bear in mind that the limits established by these laws have not yet been tested and upheld in court.

Also remember that this section of the law does not provide any protection from criminal acts (such as copyright infringement) or violation of state or federal law that is consistent with the Act. This has been theorized to accept removal of allegedly fraudulent statements or postings as falling under the definition of objectionable material.

So far, only one element of the Act has been tested in trial: In a recent court case, charges that AOL had not reacted quickly enough to a complaint about an objectionable defamatory posting were thrown out because of a ruling that the federal CDA law was superior to the state law. So federal law preempts a state's claim. But remember that this case did not touch the issue whether AOL had "adopted" (actively stated) the statements in question; therefore, it didn't really address the foundation of the CDA "safe harbor" concept.