United States Fourth Circuit

In an online-automobile dealer's action against a defendant-website company that allows consumers to comment on the quality of businesses, goods, and services, claiming that certain of these posted comments are false and harmful to its reputation, district court's grant of defendant-company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as, the district court did not err in granting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to show defendant was an information provider and not covered by Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunity.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/29/2009
• Published 12/29/2009

Judges

• Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and James P. JONES, ChiefUnited States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Andrew Friedman, Patton Boggs, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jonathan David Frieden, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Benjamin G. Chew, John C. Hilton, Patton Boggs, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellants. Stephen A. Cobb, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.