Dice di si la corte del District of Colorado, Case 1:22-cv-00899-MEH , del 5 dicembre 2022, Roland ed altri c. Letgo+2.
Si tratta di azione contro una piattaforma di scambi di annunci di compravendita (Letgo), basata sul fatto che la stessa non aveva controllato l’identità di un venditore: il quale aveva postato un annuncio fasullo per poi rapinare il potenziale acquirente (incontro poi conclusosi tragicamente per quet’ultimo).
Circa il § 230.c.1 del CDA, la piattaforma è di certo internet provider.
Che sia trattata come publisher o speaker è altretanto certo, anche se la corte si dilunga un pò di più.
Il punto difficile è se fosse o meno un <content privider>, dato che in linea di principio l’annuncio era del suo utente.
Per la corte la piattaforma era in parte anche contentt priovider.
Bisogna allora capire il fatto: centrale è l’attività di verifica dell’utente/venditore.
< Letgo provides a website and mobile application allowing users to “buy from, sell to and
chat with others locally.” Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) at ¶ 21. It advertises a “verified user” feature. Id. ¶ 23. On its website, Letgo explains that it utilizes “machine learning” to identify
and block inappropriate content (such as stolen merchandise) and continues to work closely with
local law enforcement to ensure the “trust and safety of the tens of millions of people who use
Letgo.” Id. OfferUp merged with Letgo on or around August 31, 2020. Id. ¶ 26.
To access its “marketplace,” Letgo requires that its consumers create a Letgo account. Id.
¶ 27. Each new account must provide a name (the truthfulness of which Letgo does not verify) and
an active email address. Id. Once a new Letgo account is created, the user is given an individual
“user profile.” Id. at ¶ 28. Each new user is then given an opportunity to and is encouraged to
“verify” their “user profile.” Id. Once a user is “verified,” the term “VERIFIED WITH” appears
on their profile (in this case, Brown verified with a functioning email address). Id. ¶¶ 29-30.1 Letgo
performs no background check or other verification process. Id. Once created, a Letgo user’s
account profile is viewable and accessible to any other Letgo user. Id. ¶ 31. Letgo buyers and
sellers are then encouraged to connect with other users solely through Letgo’s app. Id. Letgo’s
advertising and marketing policies prohibit selling stolen merchandise. Id. 32. Furthermore, the
app promotes its “anti-fraud technology” to help detect signs of possible scams based on keyword
usage. Id. >
ciò è dufficiente per ritenerlo cotnent priovioder e negarre alla piattaforma il safe harour.
< The singular item of information relevant here is the “verified” designation, and factually,
it appears to be a product of input from both Letgo and its users. It seems from the record that
simply providing a telephone number to Letgo is not sufficient to earn the “verified” designation.
At oral argument, Defendants acknowledged that when someone wants to create an account, he
must provide, in this case, a functioning telephone number, whereupon Letgo sends a
communication to that telephone number (an SMS text) to confirm that it really exists, then informs
users that the person offering something for sale has gone through at least some modicum of
verification. Thus, the argument can be made that Plaintiffs’ claims do not rely solely on thirdparty content.
Defendants say Letgo merely created a forum for users to develop and exchange their own
information, and the “verified” designation, relying solely on the existence of a working email
address or telephone number, did not transform Letgo into a content provider. Mot. at 14. “If [a
website] passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service
provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself . . . the website is also
a content provider.” Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d at 1162. I do not find in the existing caselaw
any easy answer. (….) In the final analysis under the CDA, I find under Accusearch Inc. that Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded, for a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), that Defendants contributed in part to the
allegedly offending “verified” representation. Therefore, as this stage in the case, Defendants are
not entitled to immunity under the statute. Whether this claim could withstand a motion for
summary judgment, of course, is not before me >
Nonostante neghi il safe harbour alla piattaforma, accoglie però le difese di questa rigettando la domanda.
Analoga disposizione non esiste nel diritto UE e ciò anche dopo il Digital Services Act (Reg. UE 2022/2065 del 19 ottobre 2022 relativo a un mercato unico dei servizi digitali e che modifica la direttiva 2000/31/CE (regolamento sui servizi digitali))
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof Eric Goldman)