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.
Argued: September 23, 2009
Decided: December 29, 2009
Opinion by Circuit Judge Agee
For Appellant: Andrew Friedman, Patton Boggs, LLP
For Appellee: Jonathan David Frieden, Odin Feldman & Pittleman, PC