V. Conclusion

Because information that is spread throughout the online world can have real-life consequences, both Congress and the courts have attempted to give clear guidance as to where liability should fall when damage results from online content. Section 230(c) of the CDA, a statute limiting the liability of online service providers for harmful information that their users create, has conventionally been interpreted to provide a broad and robust immunity for websites in order to facilitate free user expression. Such an interpretation is consistent both with the expressed will of Congress-to promote a healthy exchange of ideas with minimum government regulation105 -and with the realities of the Internet today, which now services over one billion people.106

Though the Ninth Circuit limited the scope of this immunity in the May 2007 ruling Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com through an interpretation of the statute that was inconsistent with prior case law, Doe v. SexSearch.com is a step back in the right direction. As one of the first federal CDA rulings since the Roommates.com decision, SexSearch.com refused to recognize the limit on ICS immunity that the earlier case provided. In so doing, SexSearch.com followed a standard more consistent with the intent of Congress. By ignoring the ruling in Roommates.com and instead following the pre-Roommates.com cases, the Sexsearch.com case gave clarity to the analysis of § 230 immunity for online content providers thereby restricting extraneous litigation and fostering an open Internet where responsibility lies with the user.