Airbnb non perde il safe harbour per avere evidenziato tra i dati della casa in affitto un idromassaggio non a norma

L’Appello dell’Oregon (15.12.2021, n° 316 Or App 378 (2021), Smith c. Airbnb) ritiene che Airbnb , per aver evidenziato tra i dati del cliente la vasca idromassaggi, rivelatasi poi difettosa e fonte di danni alla persona, e per aver creato una categoria di ricerca ad hoc, non diventi CONTENT PROVIDER e dunque non gli precluda di invocare il safe harbour ex § 230 CDa

Cioè tali operazioni non hanno  augmented il contenuto, proveniente dal locatore, fonte di danno e dunque non gli fanno perdere il titolo al safe harbour: <<Airbnb’s provision of a “special search category”allowing users to search for and obtain results based onuser-provided information about hot tubs does not make Airbnb a content provider or developer. Merely providing that search tool did not augment—much less, materially contribute to—Dennis’s indication that the Old Barn hada hot tub.

Moreover, the search function was simply a neutral tool that provided listings of properties with hot tubsto Airbnb users in response to their queries. See Dart, 665F Supp 2d at 969 (“The word-search function is a ‘neutraltool.’”); Gonzalez, 2 F4th at 893 (“A website is not transformed into a content creator or developer by virtue of supplying ‘neutral tools’ that deliver content in response to userinputs.”); La Park La Brea A LLC, 285 F Supp 3d at 1104(Airbnb’s “auto-complete search function” does “not makeAirbnb an information content provider.”); cf. Carafano, 339F3d at 1124 (“[T]he fact that Matchmaker classifies usercharacteristics into discrete categories,” allowing “highlystructured searches,” did “not transform Matchmaker intoa developer of the underlying misinformation.”).

Likewise, by “highlighting” the user-created listings that mention hot tubs—including Dennis’s Old Barnlisting—Airbnb did not materially contribute to any portionof the hot tub information contained in Dennis’s listing and,thus, did not become a content provider. See Dowbenko v.Cite as 316 Or App 378 (2021) 389Google Inc., 582 Fed Appx 801, 805 (11th Cir 2014) (rejecting argument that Google was transformed into a contentprovider when it “manipulated its search results to prominently feature the article at issue”); Ascentive, LLC v. Op.Corp., 842 F Supp 2d 450, 476 (EDNY 2011) (“The fact thatthe defendants *** alter the way [users’] postings are displayed” and caused content to “appear higher in searchengine results list *** do[es] not render [defendant] aninformation content provider.”); cf. Dyroff, 934 F3d at 1096(The defendant’s website “is immune from liability underCDA because its functions, including recommendations andnotifications, were content-neutral tools used to facilitatecommunications.”)>>

La sentenza cita ampjamente il notissimo precedente Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com del 2008.

La sentenza pare esatta.

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)