Re:EFF Urges Court to Reconsider Decision That Harms Interne...
by rayiner on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @11:59AM
(#21515675)
> but that Section 230 applies to actions that a user-installed software takes on that users own computer?!
Malwarebytes was the one trying to invoke Section 230's "safe harbor" for filtering software because it would immunize Malwarebytes even if its conduct was illegal under New York competition law. (And it would allow dismissing the case at an early stage, without resolving whether Malwarebytes' conduct was in fact legal.)
If you're correct that Section 230 doesn't apply at all, then the result is the same as what the Ninth Circuit held: the claims against Malwarebytes can go forward.
Malwarebytes was the one trying to invoke Section 230's "safe harbor" for filtering software because it would immunize Malwarebytes even if its conduct was illegal under New York competition law. (And it would allow dismissing the case at an early stage, without resolving whether Malwarebytes' conduct was in fact legal.)
If you're correct that Section 230 doesn't apply at all, then the result is the same as what the Ninth Circuit held: the claims against Malwarebytes can go forward.