TechLaw

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review Delfino v. Agilent Technologies Inc., No. 06-1561, a case out of California that contained a handful of disputed issues involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The lower court opinion is mostly known for the court's conclusion that the defendant, a technology company not in the business of providing online services, was nevertheless a "provider ... of interactive computer services" and thus entitled to CDA immunity in a tort suit arising out of its employee's computer use.  The court was persuaded that the defendant's provision of e-mail and Internet connectivity to employees was enough to make it an "interactive computer services" provider.

I'm sure most attorneys were surprised -- but pleased -- to see Delfino anoint each and every Internet-connected business with CDA immunity. Likely few wanted -- or expected -- the high court to spend a precious cert grant on this issue.

Still on the high court's docket is Perfect 10 v. CCBill LLC, No. 07-266 (cert. petition filed Aug. 27, 2007), a case seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the CDA immunizes interactive computer services providers from state-law intellectual property claims. The CDA exemption for "any law pertaining to intellectual property" is properly construed to mean federal intellectual property only, the Ninth Circuit decided.