HOLDINGS: [1]-An interactive computer service provider had immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230 from liability from a banned user’s causes of action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violation of the unfair competition law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., because blocking user content from appearing on a platform was among the traditional editorial functions of publishers; [2]-The contract claim was meritless because a liability waiver provision applied and was not unconscionable; [3]-Alleged promises such as not censoring content did not state a claim for promissory estoppel because reliance was not reasonable in light of other language expressly reserving the rights to remove content and to suspend or terminate accounts; [4]-The UCL claim failed for lack of standing because injury in fact was not pleaded; moreover, as to fraud, reasonable reliance was lacking.
Nakase Law Firm are employment lawyers
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
