If you wish to send us legal service, you can do so at the following address. Please note that any legal requests received by us will be made available publicly.
Redact Holdings, Inc.
3921 Alton Rd, Suite 159
Miami Beach FL 33140
United States
Please make sure to also email a copy to [email protected] as well, so we can promptly respond to your request.
We hope the above has helped you understand our service. Find below some related reading and case law.
Section 230(c)(2)(b) related cases:
Zango, Inc. v. Kaspersky
Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc
RNC v. Google
Zango v. PC Tools Pty
PC Drivers v. Malwarebytes Inc
Trademark related cases:
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc
Volkswagen v. Church
Toyota Motor Sales v. Tabari
Century 21 Real Estate Corp v. Lendingtree, Inc
General Background:
The Legal Fate of Internet Ad Blocking
From: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf
“We think the statute plainly immunizes from suit a provider of interactive computer services that makes available software that filters or screens material that the user or the provider deems objectionable.
Thus, affording the safe harbor to providers of antimalware software aligns with the Congressional policy stated in § 230(b)(3). Malware may also expose users to objectionable content, including links to pornographic websites, or to software thatcan compromise the user’s privacy, computer security, or identity. Thus, the policy stated in § 230(b)(4), of removing disincentives for the development of software that filters out objectionable or inappropriate material, is served by a safe harbor for providers of malware-filtering software who otherwise fall within the terms of the statute.
Congress plainly intended to give computer users the tools to filter the Internet’s deluge of material users would find objectionable, in part by immunizing the providers of blocking software from liability.”
From: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=wlufac
The Court found that users knowingly downloaded PC Tools' software to avoid potential malware. In doing so, the Court credited the importance of the individual user's decision to rely on PC Tool's expertise in identifying and blocking malware. PC Tools' assistance in helping users block malware, the Court reasoned, also served a broad public interest. The Court further reinforced its positive view of PC Tools' services by noting that it had taken action to significantly mitigate the amount of irreparable harm done to Zango. With all of this in mind the Court concluded that it would be agreater hardship to impose liability upon PC Tools and that "it is in the public interest to allow companies similar to [PC Tools] to be able to exercise their judgment and block potential malware applications”.
The Court reached a similar result with respect to Zango's challenge to Kaspersky's anti-malware services. Zango again alleged tortious interference with a contract, among other claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that 47 U.S.C. §230(c) "plainly immunizes from suit a provider of interactive computer services that makes available software that filters or screens material that the user or the provider deems objectionable. ' The Court reached this conclusion by noting that services that provide users with filtering tools and require regular updates meet the literal provisions of §230
"The less certain the district court is of the likelihood of success on the merits, the more plaintiffs must convince the district court that the public interest and balance of hardships tip in their favor.
"Tortious interference arises from either the defendant's pursuit of an improper objective of harming the plaintiff or the use of wrongful means that in fact cause injury to plaintiff's contractual or business relationships." Pleas v. City of Seattle, 774 P.2d 1158, 1163 (Wash. 1989). The Court finds it unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to demonstrate that Defendant's conduct in attempting to protect its customers from what it perceives to be potentially harmful or annoying software stems from an "improper" motive or uses any "wrongful" means.
Join our Discord server and we will directly answer your questions in real time!