Petitioner seeks review of whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes website operators from liability for their own negligent or tortious conduct when a third party has contributed to the injury caused, and whether the inconsistent application of Section 230 immunity across circuit courts warrants Supreme Court clarification

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, established immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others. An immunity clause in the Act states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Since the CDA’s inception in 1996, internet companies have continually shielded themselves from liability, not for the published material or as speaker of the content, but for situations where their own actions or omissions contributed to the harm caused. The questions presented are: Does Section 230 of the CDA immunize website operators for their own negligent or tortious conduct from all civil lawsuits any time a third party has contributed to the injury caused? AND Does the inconsistent application of Section 230 of the CDA among the Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the extent of immunity provided to website operators warrant action by the Supreme Court of the United States to clarify what conduct is protected by the statute?