Content area
Abstract
When C.H.'s parents found out, they sued Omegle alleging a number of theories: * possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A; * violation of the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 1591 and 1595; * violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710; * intrusion upon seclusion; * negligence; * intentional infliction of emotional distress; * ratification/vicarious liability; and * public nuisance The court granted Omegle's motion to dismiss all eight claims, holding that each of the claims was barred by the immunity provided under 47 U.S.C. 230. Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2015), the court observed that a defendant seeking to enjoy the immunity provided by Section 230 must establish that: (1) defendant is a service provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the causes of action treat defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and (3) a different information content provider provided the information. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS SOUGHT TO TREAT OMEGLE AS A PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER OF INFORMATION The court found that each of the claims for possession of child pornography, sex trafficking, violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, intrusion upon seclusion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress sought redress for damages caused by the unknown pedophile's conduct. [...]in the court's view, through the negligence and public nuisance claims, plaintiffs alleged that Omegle knew or should have known about the dangers that the platform posed to minor children, and that Omegle failed to ensure that minor children did not fall prey to child predators that may use the Web site.