Does Section 230(c)(1) preempt discrimination claims against an interactive computer service?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) preempt discrimination claims by a customer against an interactive computer service for its own misconduct, as opposed to misconduct of a third party? 2. Does Section 230(c)(2)(A) of the CDA preempt claims where the plaintiff alleges the interactive computer service acted in bad faith? 3. Should Petitioner be afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint where the district court denied leave to amend as futile based on CDA immunity, but on appeal the Second Circuit sustained dismissal based only on its holding that Petitioners failed to allege sufficient facts of discrimination without even addressing CDA immunity? ii RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner Church United is a California notfor-profit religious corporation. Church United operates under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It has no parent corporation and, as it has no stock, no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock. ili LIST OF PROCEEDINGS United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit No. 20-616 James Domen, and Church United, Vimeo, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Date of Final Opinion: September 24, 2021 Date of Rehearing Denial: November 15, 2021 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 1:19-cv-08418-AT James Domen, and Church United, Plaintiffs Vimeo, Inc., Defendant Date of Final Order: January 15, 2020