Comments on: Sued for encouraging user-generated content

By: SPQR

SPQR — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:33:51 +0000

I think that the CDA provision for immunity for third party content will control – it is very broad.

By: Kent

Kent — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:16:03 +0000

Isn’t truth a defense in a libel suit?

Quizno’s is vastly superior to Subway, at least in my town.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:01:05 +0000

The threshold question is this: did Quizno’s review or endorse the content in some way? If not, there should be no case.

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:21:23 +0000

By setting guidelines that deliberately target Subway, they open themselves to lawsuits by Subway.
That the content is provided by independents and afterwards selected by them is no different from contracting several advertising firms and choosing one in a competition for running a new campaign…

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:13:28 +0000

I hear you, but how is what Quizno’s did different from soliciting ads from advertising firms, and then showing those ads on TV? It seems to me that Quizno’s review and approval is what differentiates this case.

And you’re certainly right that iFilm is prsumably just a deep pocket. I just meant that I wasn’t sure what the legal theory would be. I don’t know what iFilm did.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:54:06 +0000

Tomt T,

Any first year law student could tell you this: include every party (with money) even remotely involved. It costs you nothing, but it costs them money, so they might give you money to go away. No loser-pays system here!

Secondly, a ruling that Quizno’s is liable can far FAR too easily be abused – you could get a “friend” to create actionable content for a competitor, then su the competitor. Lather, rinse, repeat. No more competitor.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:30:38 +0000

If Quizno’s had simply said, “post your interesting videos on YouTube,” that seems too attenuated for a defamation suit, because then Quizno’s is literally doing nothing more than encouraging other people to create something and disseminate it. In this case, though, Quizno’s is saying, “send us your interesting videos, we’ll review them, and then we’ll post them on a site we created.” That seems to me to be an easier basis on which to allege active involvement in publishing the allegedly defamatory statements.

I’m not sure about the basis for including iFilm as a defendant; offhand, that seems more iffy.