Jason Fyk v. Facebook, Inc.

Is the breadth of Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) immunity that “if a[n] [interactive computer service provider, “ICSP”] unknowingly leaves up illegal third-party content, it is protected from publisher liability by § 230(c)(1); and if it takes down certain third-party content in good faith, it is protected by § 230(c)(2)(A)”? SCJ Thomas’ Statement in Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, No. 19-1284, at 3-4 (Oct. 13, 2020), App.315a.

Is an ICSP (Facebook, Inc., “Facebook”) CDA immune where someone (Jason Fyk, “Fyk”) seeks to hold the ICSP liable for its “own misconduct,” rather than for acting “‘as the publisher or speaker’ of [his] content . . . [or] for removing content in [bad] faith?” Id. at 9, App.322a (emphasis added); see also id. at 4- 6, App.317a-318a.

Does the CDA text require an ICSP’s “in whole or in part” development of “the publisher’s” content to be “substantial” / “material” to render the ICSP a (f)(3) information content provider (“ICP”) ineligible for CDA immunity? Id. at 6, App.319a.

Does (c)(1) “protect any decision to edit or remove content,” “eviscerat[ing] the narrower [(c)(2)(A)] liability shield Congress included in the statute”? Id. at 7-8 (emphasis in original), App.319a-320a.

If an ICSP develops, even in part, “the” publisher’s content with an anti-competitive animus, is the ICSP acting as a “Good Samaritan” eligible for CDA immunity?