Eric Goldman ci notizia di e ci dà il link alla sentenza di appello del 9 circuito 27.03.2024, No. 22-16514, Hadona Diep v. Apple .
Dismissed le azioni “counts I (violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act), II (violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act), III (violation of California’s Consumer Privacy Act), VI (violation of
Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act), VII (additional
violation of Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act), VIII
(violation of Maryland’s Personal Information Protection Act), and X (negligence)
of the complaint”.
Invece il § 230 CDA non protegge da azioni basate sulle leggi statali proconsumatori nè da altra come comncorrenza sleale:
<<The claims asserted in counts IV (violation of California’s Unfair
Competition Law (“UCL”)), V (violation of California’s Legal Remedies Act
(“CLRA”)), and IX (liability under Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act
(“MCPA”)) are not barred by the CDA. These state law consumer protection
claims do not arise from Apple’s publication decisions as to whether to authorize
Toast Plus. Rather, these claims seek to hold Apple liable for its own
representations concerning the App Store and Apple’s process for reviewing the
applications available there. Because Apple is the primary “information content
provider” with respect to those statements, section 230(c)(1) does not apply. See
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2003)
(examining which party “provide[d] the essential published content”)>>.
Nemmeno queste azioni sonio impedite da patti su Limitation of liability (anche se qui di non interesse)