CUBBY, INC. v. COMPUSERVE 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 online service provider was sued for defamatory content posted by a third party on its platform. The court found the provider was a distributor, not a publisher, and granted summary judgment because it lacked knowledge of the defamatory statements.
Legal Significance: This seminal case established that an online service provider is treated as a distributor for defamation liability purposes, holding it liable for third-party content only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamatory material, thereby avoiding publisher liability.
CUBBY, INC. v. COMPUSERVE 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
Defendant CompuServe Inc. operated an online information service (CIS) that hosted numerous special interest forums. One such forum, the Journalism Forum, was managed by an independent contractor, Cameron Communications, Inc. (CCI). CCI, in turn, contracted with another independent entity, Don Fitzpatrick Associates (DFA), to publish a daily newsletter called “Rumorville.” Plaintiffs Cubby, Inc. and Robert Blanchard developed a competing electronic newsletter, “Skuttlebut.” Rumorville published allegedly defamatory statements about Blanchard and described Skuttlebut as a “new start-up scam.” CompuServe had no editorial control over Rumorville’s content, which was uploaded directly by DFA and made immediately available to subscribers. CompuServe had no direct contractual relationship with DFA and asserted it had no knowledge of the specific statements before the lawsuit was filed. Plaintiffs sued CompuServe for libel, business disparagement, and unfair competition based on the statements published in Rumorville.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an online information service provider that makes third-party content available on its platform liable as a publisher for defamatory statements within that content, or is it considered a distributor liable only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamation?
The court held that CompuServe was a distributor and granted its motion 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
Is an online information service provider that makes third-party content available on its platform liable as a publisher for defamatory statements within that content, or is it considered a distributor liable only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamation?
Conclusion
This case established a foundational rule for internet intermediary liability, immunizing online 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 reprehende
Legal Rule
An online information service provider that lacks editorial control over third-party content 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.
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished between a publisher, who is traditionally subject to liability 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 pro
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An online service provider (OSP) that exercises no editorial control over