Judge Dismisses Suit Alleging Craigslist is a "Public Nuisance"

U.S. District Court Judge John Grady threw out a lawsuit against Craigslist accusing it of being a “public nuisance” and of violating federal and state prostitution laws. At issue in the civil lawsuit filed in March by the sheriff of Cook County in Illinois was Craigslist’s then-“Erotic Services” section (now renamed “Adult Services”). Sheriff Thomas Dart felt that this section of the Craigslist website facilitated prostitution by allowing prostitutes and clients to connect virtually and then meet in person to consummate the deal.

Judge Grady, however, disagreed with the sheriff’s claims. In dismissing Sheriff Thomas’s public nuisance claim, Judge Grady wrote:

[The plaintiff] alleges for example that Craigslist knowingly "arranges" meetings for the purpose of prostitution and "directs" people to places of prostitution. But these allegations strain the ordinary meaning of the terms "arrange" and "direct" unless Craigslist created the offending ads. There is no such allegation, and [thus], we cannot treat Craigslist as if it did create those ads.

What this case boils down to is something that other online venues have dealt with: the liability websites should incur for the actions of their customers. eBay has this problem with trademark and copyright infringement. The most recent eBay case, pitting the online marketplace powerhouse against jewelry-maker Tiffany, found that eBay could not be held liable for trademark infringement due to eBay users posting fake Tiffany items on the eBay website. Of note, that case is currently pending appeal in the Second Circuit.

So far it seems that district judges are reluctant to impose a high level of contributory liability for website operators. This seems fair as it places the focus on the wrongdoers themselves, rather than the venue. Of course, if eBay or Craigslist are facilitating these illegal activities, then some liability might be in order. However, both have their own internal controls to deal with these potential issues. In Craigslist’s case it’s the manual review of each new adult posting, and for eBay it’s the (much maligned) VeRO (Verified Rights Owner) program.

However, to what extent will these internal controls be deemed sufficient as a matter of law to preclude websites from contributory liability? As more activity that traditionally takes place in person (shopping for example) is moved to the online sphere, I think it is inevitable that more clarity is needed from the higher courts on this issue.