Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014), is a case in which the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Roommates material development test for limiting immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). A libel suit was pursued by Sarah Jones, formerly a high school teacher and Cincinnati Ben–Gals cheerleader, against Dirty World, LLC, (Dirty World) operator of the celebrity gossip web site TheDirty.com, concerning two postings on TheDirty.com that Dirty World refused to remove.
Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case name
'Sarah Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Records LLC'
TheDirty.com is a website, founded by Nik Richie, that publishes anonymous gossip from site users. In October and December 2009, two posts pictured Jones and accused her of promiscuity and infecting others with sexually transmitted diseases. Each post was authored by a site user and anonymously attributed to "The Dirty Army". An editorial note by Richie was appended and signed "nik". Jones sent several e-mails to Richie asking for the posts to be removed. Richie refused to, even after Jones hired an attorney and threatened suit.
Jones filed suit in federal district court on December 14, 2009, alleging defamation, libel per se, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state tort law. Jones was a resident of Northern Kentucky, a teacher at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, Kentucky and a member of the cheerleading squad of the Cincinnati Bengals professional football team.[1] Jones initially brought suit against Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, and in August, 2010, was awarded an $11 million default judgement when the defendant failed to answer the suit.[2] It later came to light that the plaintiff had mistakenly sued the wrong company: Dirty World Entertainment recordings operates "TheDirt.com," while the operator of the offending site ("TheDirty.com") is named DirtyWorldLLC.[3] Jones subsequently filed an amended complaint including Dirty World, LLC.[4]
Richie and Dirty World moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, and for judgement as a matter of law, claiming that Section 230 of the CDA gave Dirty World, as a provider of interactive computer services, immunity from suit over material authored by third parties and published on the website. The district court denied these motions, concluding that a publisher, by "ratifying or adopting the posts" by addition of comments and invitation of further material would lose their immunity. The trial ended in a mistrial after the jury hung, but Jones prevailed at the second trial, winning $338,000 in combined compensatory and punitive damages. Richie and Dirty World appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Parallel Developments
In an unusual turn of events, while her civil lawsuit remained pending, on March 29, 2012, plaintiff Sarah Jones was indicted by a Kenton County grand jury which charged her with a felony count of "Sexual abuse in the first degree" and "Unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual or other prohibited activities".[5] On October 8, 2012, Sarah Jones pleaded guilty to felony custodial interference and misdemeanor sexual misconduct. She was given a two-year sentence, but will not have to serve any time if she follows the terms of her probation for five years. Jones' mother, former school principal Cheryl Armstrong Jones, also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempted tampering with evidence. She admitted to the judge that she sent the teen a text message telling him to get rid of his phone and also avoided jail time.[6] The teen in question has publicly identified himself as 18-year-old Cody York. The same day Jones pleaded guilty in her criminal cases, Jones notified a Kentucky civil court that she was prepared to pursue her 2009 lawsuit against TheDirty.com. "Sarah Jones is only seeking damages prior to her relationship with [the high school student]," writes lawyer Eric Deters in the court filing requesting a January 2013 trial. "The conduct of thedirty.com and her reputation from the time of the libel was intact. It may be harmed now, but she does not seek damages for this time period or in the future."[7]
Appeal
On July 15, 2013, the defendants filed a timely Notice of Appeal. The district court judge, William Bertelsman, filed a Memorandum Opinion[8] to further explain his decision. The case generated considerable interest in the reputation management industry, since it was the first time CDA was not accepted as a defense. Many feared that a successful suit by Jones open the doors to a flood of similar lawsuits.[9][10] Several amicus briefs were filed with the court:
On June 16, 2014, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's decision with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dirty World.[16] The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erroneously applied an "adoption or ratification test" and instead adopted the material contribution test from Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC.[17] The Court noted, "... determinations of immunity under the CDA should be resolved at an earlier stage of litigation," having earlier noted in the opinion that the lower court had denied Dirty World's motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, motion to revise judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, as well as their motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal.
^"Jones v. DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS, LLC, Dist. Court, ED Kentucky 2011" Google Scholar
^Barrouquere, Brett. "Northern Ky. teacher wins $11 million judgment against gossip Web site", Kentucky.com
^When Suing A Website For Libel, It Helps To Actually Sue The Right One. From TechDirt. Retrieved on March 16, 2011.
^Kashmir Hill, Bengals Cheerleader's 11 Million Victory in Online Defamation Lawsuit is Short Lived as She Sued the Wrong Site. From Forbes. Retrieved on March 16, 2011.
^"The Dirty Loses Reputation Management Lawsuit". 15 July 2013.
^Hill, Kasmir Big Deal For Internet Law: Ex-Bengals Cheerleader Sarah Jones Wins Suit Against The Dirty Over 'Reputation-Ruining' Comments Forbes. Retrieved July 17, 2013.
jones, dirty, world, entertainment, recordings, 2014, case, which, united, states, sixth, circuit, court, appeals, adopted, roommates, material, development, test, limiting, immunity, under, section, communications, decency, libel, suit, pursued, sarah, jones,. Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC 755 F 3d 398 6th Cir 2014 is a case in which the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Roommates material development test for limiting immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act CDA A libel suit was pursued by Sarah Jones formerly a high school teacher and Cincinnati Ben Gals cheerleader against Dirty World LLC Dirty World operator of the celebrity gossip web site TheDirty com concerning two postings on TheDirty com that Dirty World refused to remove Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLCCourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitFull case name Sarah Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Records LLC ArguedMay 1 2014DecidedJune 16 2014Citation s 755 F 3d 398 6th Cir 2014 http www ca6 uscourts gov opinions pdf 14a0125p 06 pdfHoldingDefendants actions immune to suit under the material contribution test Court membershipJudge s sittingRalph B Guy Julia Smith Gibbons Richard Allen GriffinCase opinionsMajorityGibbonsLaws appliedCommunications Decency Act section 230 immunity Contents 1 Background 1 1 Parallel Developments 2 Appeal 2 1 Opinion 3 See also 4 ReferencesBackground EditTheDirty com is a website founded by Nik Richie that publishes anonymous gossip from site users In October and December 2009 two posts pictured Jones and accused her of promiscuity and infecting others with sexually transmitted diseases Each post was authored by a site user and anonymously attributed to The Dirty Army An editorial note by Richie was appended and signed nik Jones sent several e mails to Richie asking for the posts to be removed Richie refused to even after Jones hired an attorney and threatened suit Jones filed suit in federal district court on December 14 2009 alleging defamation libel per se false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress under state tort law Jones was a resident of Northern Kentucky a teacher at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood Kentucky and a member of the cheerleading squad of the Cincinnati Bengals professional football team 1 Jones initially brought suit against Dirty World Entertainment Recordings and in August 2010 was awarded an 11 million default judgement when the defendant failed to answer the suit 2 It later came to light that the plaintiff had mistakenly sued the wrong company Dirty World Entertainment recordings operates TheDirt com while the operator of the offending site TheDirty com is named DirtyWorldLLC 3 Jones subsequently filed an amended complaint including Dirty World LLC 4 Richie and Dirty World moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and for judgement as a matter of law claiming that Section 230 of the CDA gave Dirty World as a provider of interactive computer services immunity from suit over material authored by third parties and published on the website The district court denied these motions concluding that a publisher by ratifying or adopting the posts by addition of comments and invitation of further material would lose their immunity The trial ended in a mistrial after the jury hung but Jones prevailed at the second trial winning 338 000 in combined compensatory and punitive damages Richie and Dirty World appealed to the Sixth Circuit Parallel Developments Edit In an unusual turn of events while her civil lawsuit remained pending on March 29 2012 plaintiff Sarah Jones was indicted by a Kenton County grand jury which charged her with a felony count of Sexual abuse in the first degree and Unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual or other prohibited activities 5 On October 8 2012 Sarah Jones pleaded guilty to felony custodial interference and misdemeanor sexual misconduct She was given a two year sentence but will not have to serve any time if she follows the terms of her probation for five years Jones mother former school principal Cheryl Armstrong Jones also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempted tampering with evidence She admitted to the judge that she sent the teen a text message telling him to get rid of his phone and also avoided jail time 6 The teen in question has publicly identified himself as 18 year old Cody York The same day Jones pleaded guilty in her criminal cases Jones notified a Kentucky civil court that she was prepared to pursue her 2009 lawsuit against TheDirty com Sarah Jones is only seeking damages prior to her relationship with the high school student writes lawyer Eric Deters in the court filing requesting a January 2013 trial The conduct of thedirty com and her reputation from the time of the libel was intact It may be harmed now but she does not seek damages for this time period or in the future 7 Appeal EditOn July 15 2013 the defendants filed a timely Notice of Appeal The district court judge William Bertelsman filed a Memorandum Opinion 8 to further explain his decision The case generated considerable interest in the reputation management industry since it was the first time CDA was not accepted as a defense Many feared that a successful suit by Jones open the doors to a flood of similar lawsuits 9 10 Several amicus briefs were filed with the court Amicus brief 11 by various CDA proponents ACLU EFF CDT DMLP PPP Wendy Seltzer and Adam Holland Amicus brief 12 by online service providers Advanced Publications Inc Amazon com Inc Avvo Inc Buzzfeed Inc Cable News Network Inc Curbed com LLC Gawker Media LLC Magazine Publishers of America Inc The McClatchy Company The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press TripAdvisor LLC Yahoo Inc and Yelp Inc Amicus brief 13 by various interactive computer services AOL Inc eBay Inc Facebook Inc Google Inc LinkedIn Corp Microsoft Corp Tumblr Inc Twitter Inc and Zynga Inc Amicus brief 14 Appeal from the United States District Court 15 Opinion Edit On June 16 2014 the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court s decision with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Dirty World 16 The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erroneously applied an adoption or ratification test and instead adopted the material contribution test from Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v Roommates com LLC 17 The Court noted determinations of immunity under the CDA should be resolved at an earlier stage of litigation having earlier noted in the opinion that the lower court had denied Dirty World s motion to dismiss motion for summary judgment motion to revise judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law as well as their motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal See also EditPersonal jurisdiction Zippo Manufacturing Co v Zippo Dot Com Inc Section 230References Edit Jones v DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS LLC Dist Court ED Kentucky 2011 Google Scholar Barrouquere Brett Northern Ky teacher wins 11 million judgment against gossip Web site Kentucky com When Suing A Website For Libel It Helps To Actually Sue The Right One From TechDirt Retrieved on March 16 2011 Kashmir Hill Bengals Cheerleader s 11 Million Victory in Online Defamation Lawsuit is Short Lived as She Sued the Wrong Site From Forbes Retrieved on March 16 2011 https www scribd com doc 87387920 Indictment Kentucky v Sarah Jones Cheryl Jones Kenton County Grand Jury Indictment http newyork newsday com business technology sarah jones ex nfl cheerleader pleads guilty to student sex 1 4095093 bare URL Ex Bengals Cheerleader Pleads Guilty to Sex with Student but is Still Suing the Dirty for Ruining Her Reputation Forbes http adserv stocksite com images pubdocs jones v dirty world Jones v DirtyWorld DN210 pdf Memorandum Opinion by Judge William O Bertelsman The Dirty Loses Reputation Management Lawsuit 15 July 2013 Hill Kasmir Big Deal For Internet Law Ex Bengals Cheerleader Sarah Jones Wins Suit Against The Dirty Over Reputation Ruining Comments Forbes Retrieved July 17 2013 http adserv stocksite com images pubdocs jones v dirty world Amicus Brief ACLU et al pdf Amicus Brief by various CDA proponents http adserv stocksite com images pubdocs jones v dirty world Amicus Brief Online Service Providers pdf Amicus Brief by various online service providers http adserv stocksite com images pubdocs jones v dirty world Amicus Brief Interactive Computer Services pdf Amicus Brief by various interactive computer services http digitalcommons law scu edu cgi viewcontent cgi filename 0 amp article 1572 amp context historical amp type additional Amicus Brief by Opinion Corp http www ca6 uscourts gov opinions pdf 14a0125p 06 pdf Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington Opinion from Sixth Circuit website http www ca6 uscourts gov opinions pdf 14a0125p 06 pdf Id Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC amp oldid 1167602108, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
