You are here: / / DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH...

DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF BY REMOVING FIVE VIDEOS POSTED BY PLAINTIFF CLAIMING CHILDHOOD VACCINATION LEADS TO AUTISM; THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AUTHORIZES INTERNET PROVIDERS TO REMOVE “OBJECTIONABLE” MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined defendant video-hosting service, Vimeo, did not breach its contract with plaintiff by removing five videos posted by plaintiff which Vimeo concluded made false or misleading claims about vaccine safety. The videos claimed that childhood vaccines lead to autism:

This appeal concerns whether a video-hosting service may be held liable for its decision to remove videos that it determines violate its terms of service. Defendant Vimeo, Inc. prohibits users from posting videos that make false or misleading claims about vaccine safety. It removed five videos, posted by a commercial user, because the videos claimed that childhood vaccination leads to autism. The user sued, claiming that Vimeo had breached the parties’ contract. The motion court held that liability was precluded by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. We agree. Section 230 prevents lawsuits against Internet service providers for their good-faith decisions to remove content that they consider objectionable. If service providers had to justify those decisions in court, or if plaintiffs could circumvent immunity through unsupported accusations of bad faith, section 230 would be a dead letter. This is as true for commercial users as for any other plaintiff. Therefore, we affirm dismissal of the complaint.

… [S]ection 230(c)(2) prohibits holding an interactive computer service provider liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider . . . considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” (47 USC § 230[c][2][A]). Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v Vimeo, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01978, First Dept 3-22-22

Practice Point: The Communications Decency Act allows Internet providers to take down posted material the providers deem “objectionable.” Here a video-hosting service, Vimeo, took down five videos posted by plaintiff which claimed childhood vaccination leads to autism. Plaintiff’s breach of contract action was dismissed.

 

You might also like
A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND A SUBSEQUENT VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE, DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLECT BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY AND VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS (FIRST DEPT).
Supreme Court Used the Wrong Standards When It Denied Petitioner’s Request for Documents Relating to Complaints Alleging the Improper Use of School Property by an Employee of the Department of Education (the Employee Gave a Speech on School Property Which May Have Violated the Chancellor’s Regulations re: the Use of School Property for Political Purposes)—Correct Analytical Criteria Explained and Applied
THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCTRINE,” WHICH ADDRESSES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS, APPLIES TO THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS AT THE TIME OF THE CONDUCT ALLEGED IN THE LAWSUIT, NOT AT THE TIME THE LAWSUIT WAS BROUGHT; CONTRARY AUTHORITY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (FIRST DEPT). ​
MOTION TO DISMISS SUIT SEEKING RETURN OF A PAINTING ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE NAZI-OCCUPIED FRENCH GOVERNMENT DURING WORLD WAR II PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT).
NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM... PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’...