Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An internet provider promised to remove harmful user-posted content but failed to do so. The court held that while federal law immunizes providers from torts based on publisher liability, it does not immunize them from liability for breaking a specific, enforceable promise to remove content.
Legal Significance: Established that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not immunize an interactive computer service from a promissory estoppel claim, creating a contract-based exception to the statute’s broad protection against liability for third-party content.
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Cecilia Barnes’ ex-boyfriend created unauthorized, sexually explicit profiles of her on Yahoo!’s website. The profiles included her work contact information, leading to severe harassment. Barnes repeatedly contacted Yahoo to have the profiles removed. After several unsuccessful attempts, a Yahoo Director of Communications, Ms. Osako, called Barnes directly. Osako told Barnes she would “personally walk the statements over to the division responsible for stopping unauthorized profiles and they would take care of it.” Barnes alleged she relied on this specific promise and took no further action. However, Yahoo failed to remove the profiles for another two months, at which point Barnes filed suit. Barnes asserted claims for negligent undertaking and promissory estoppel under Oregon law. Yahoo moved to dismiss, arguing it was immune from liability under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects internet service providers from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of third-party content. The district court dismissed the entire complaint.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes an interactive computer service from liability as a publisher of third-party content, also preclude a state-law promissory estoppel claim arising from the service’s specific promise to remove that content?
No. The court reversed the dismissal of the promissory estoppel claim. While Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes an interactive computer service from liability as a publisher of third-party content, also preclude a state-law promissory estoppel claim arising from the service’s specific promise to remove that content?
Conclusion
This case establishes a significant contract-based exception to the otherwise broad immunity Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c
Legal Rule
Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), does Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished between Barnes's two claims: negligent undertaking (a tort) and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA immunizes an interactive computer service (ICS)