Case Summary
**Case Summary: Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, Docket No. 7845400**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Filing Date:** 2008
**Citation:** 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)
**Background:**
The Fair Housing Council of San Diego (the "Council") filed a lawsuit against Roommate.com, an online roommate matching service. The Council alleged that Roommate.com violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by allowing users to post discriminatory preferences in their roommate searches. Specifically, the Council claimed that the website facilitated discrimination based on familial status and sex, among other protected characteristics.
**Legal Issues:**
1. Whether Roommate.com was acting as a financial institution or engaged in discriminatory practices that violated the Fair Housing Act.
2. The applicability of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), specifically Section 230, which provides immunity to online service providers from liability for content created by third-party users.
**Court's Analysis:**
The Ninth Circuit examined the nature of Roommate.com’s actions under the Fair Housing Act. The court noted that while users had the ability to post personal preferences regarding traits such as sex and familial status, Roommate.com was not directly engaged in discriminatory practices itself. The court also assessed the platform's user-generated content and its role in allowing users to express their preferences.
Regarding the CDA, the court ruled that Roommate.com qualified for immunity under Section 230 because it did not create the discriminatory content but rather provided a platform for users to express their preferences. As such, the court concluded that Roommate.com could not be held liable under the FHA for the discriminatory statements made by individuals using the site.
**Decision:**
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling in favor of Roommate.com. The court held that the online service did not violate the Fair Housing Act, emphasizing the protections afforded to online platforms under the Communications Decency Act.
**Significance:**
This case is significant as it addresses the boundaries of liability for online platforms concerning third-party content and the interpretation of the Fair Housing Act in the context of digital services. The ruling reinforces the protections provided by the CDA, highlighting the complexities that arise when marrying online services with anti-discrimination laws.