9th Circuit: GoDaddy Not Liable for Domain Name Hijacking
GoDaddy isn’t liable for a gambling service allegedly hijacking a domain name due to Communication Decency Act Section 230 immunity, a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Friday (docket 21-16182).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Scott Rigsby registered a domain name for his Scott Rigsby Foundation, a nonprofit to inspire active lifestyles for those with physical disabilities, with GoDaddy in 2007. After an apparent payment default in 2018, which Rigsby claims resulted from a GoDaddy glitch, a third party registered the newly available domain name and turned it into a gambling information website. Rigsby sued GoDaddy before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for Lanham Act violations and various state law infractions. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and the return of his domain name. The Northern District of Georgia transferred the case to the District of Arizona, which dismissed his claims.
A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, saying Rigsby didn’t overcome immunity under the Communications Decency Act or the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. He also failed to satisfy a “use in commerce” requirement in the Lanham Act, the court said. Judge Margaret McKeown wrote the opinion on behalf of Sidney Thomas and Richard Clifton.
GoDaddy qualifies for Section 230 immunity because it wasn't providing the content found on the gambling service’s domain, despite Rigsby’s claim that GoDaddy made “the affirmative decision to publish” the harmful content, the court said. Hosts can lose immunity if they make “material contributions” to the site’s content, but Rigsby’s complaint is “devoid of allegations that GoDaddy contributed to the content of the gambling site,” the court said.
Rigsby compared the case to a 9th Circuit decision in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com. That website faced Fair Housing Act claims. The court concluded Section 230 immunity didn’t apply because the website posted a questionnaire and required users to answer it in violation of the FHA. The website’s own actions resulted in the violations, the court said. GoDaddy’s activity “was limited to providing the third party a domain name, and nothing in Rigsby’s complaint makes a plausible case for GoDaddy acting as an information content provider on scottrigsbyfoundation.org,” the panel said.
The court cited language from a 9th Circuit decision about Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google (see 2301230051), which the Supreme Court is currently considering. When designing Section 230, Congress made the policy decision “not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties’ potentially injurious messages.”
The 9th Circuit concluded Rigsby also failed to plead any viable claims supporting the relief he seeks in blocking the third party registrant and reinstating himself as the rightful owner of the domain name, the court said. It’s possible for Rigsby to seek relief under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the ruling said. Attorneys for GoDaddy and Rigsby didn’t comment.