Rebooting Cybertort Law

Cyberspace provides an ideal legal environment for tortfeasors and online criminals because Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have no duty to mitigate harms caused by ongoing torts, crimes, and infringing acts. Courts have stretched Congress\u27s express language in § 230 of the Communications Decency Act from the narrow purpose of immunizing ISPs as publishers to the expanded purpose of shielding them from all tort liability. This Article proposes imposing a limited duty of care on ISPs to remove or block ongoing tortious activities on their services when they have been given actual notice. This reform will harmonize American ISP liability law with the European Union\u27s Electronic Commerce Directive, which imposes an affirmative duty on ISPs to take down objectionable materials. It also will unify U.S. law by creating procedures consistent with the takedown policy mandated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Can Digital Speech Loosen the Gordian Knot of Reputation Law?

Can Digital Speech Loosen the Gordian Knot of Reputation Law

Douglas Bates v. Utah Association of Realtors; Christopher Kyler; Charles Smalley; Salt Lake Board of Realtors; Northern Wasatch Association of Realtors; Wasatch Front Regional MLS; Bryan R. Kohler; Michael J. Ostermiller; Jillinda Bowers; Brady Long dba Equity Real Estate; Thomas Johnson; Randall Wall; Sandra Hoover; and DOES 1-60 inclusive : Reply Brief of Appellant

Reply Brief of Appellan

Reputational Injury Without a Reputational Attack: Addressing Negligence Claims for Pure Reputational Harm

This Note examines the unsettled relationship between defamation and negligence. The law of defamation, through the torts of libel and slander, constitutes a well-developed and complex body of state common law and constitutional considerations. However, some claims for reputational harm may fall outside of this framework, as the law of defamation does not account for all of the ways that an individual’s reputation may be injured. Thus, plaintiffs sometimes bring negligence claims to seek redress for damage to reputation. When a plaintiff brings a negligence claim for pure reputational harm, the court is faced with a variety of options for handling the claim. This Note argues that courts should adopt a multistep approach to handling such claims. The court should first determine whether the claim is communication-based or not. If it is a noncommunicative claim, it should be allowed to stand as a simple negligence claim. If, however, the claim is communication-based, it should be presumptively displaced by the torts of libel and slander