ZERAN v. AMERICA ONLINE, 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 service provider (AOL) was sued for defamatory posts made by a third party. The court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants AOL broad immunity from liability, even after it was notified of the defamatory content.
Legal Significance: This landmark case established the broad scope of Section 230 immunity for interactive computer services, holding that the statute protects providers from tort liability for third-party content even when they have notice of its harmful nature, thereby preventing distributor liability claims.
ZERAN v. AMERICA ONLINE, 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
An unidentified third party posted messages on an America Online, Inc. (AOL) bulletin board advertising offensive merchandise related to the Oklahoma City bombing. The posts directed interested parties to call Kenneth Zeran’s home telephone number. As a result, Zeran was inundated with angry, derogatory, and threatening phone calls. Zeran immediately contacted AOL and requested that the defamatory posting be removed. Despite his repeated calls and AOL’s assurances, similar messages continued to appear over several days, and the threatening calls intensified, particularly after a radio station broadcast the hoax. Zeran sued AOL, alleging it was negligent for unreasonably delaying the removal of the defamatory messages, refusing to post a retraction, and failing to screen for similar subsequent postings. AOL moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which had been enacted after the postings but before Zeran filed his lawsuit.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunize an interactive computer service provider from state tort liability for defamatory information posted by a third party, even after the provider receives notice of the defamatory material?
Yes. Section 230 provides broad immunity to interactive computer service providers from 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
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 immunize an interactive computer service provider from state tort liability for defamatory information posted by a third party, even after the provider receives notice of the defamatory material?
Conclusion
This case provides a foundational and expansive interpretation of § 230 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
Legal Rule
Under the Communications Decency Act, "[n]o provider or user of an interactive 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
Legal Analysis
The court rejected Zeran's argument that § 230 immunizes providers from traditional 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 al
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer