Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy treats a moderating online service as a publisher
Event Reviewed Automatically reviewed for factual accuracy, tone, and neutrality. Review does not check claims against cited sources. Last reviewed 27 October 2026.A New York trial court rules that Prodigy can be held liable as a publisher for an anonymous user's allegedly defamatory bulletin-board posts, because Prodigy publicly claimed editorial control over its boards and exercised it through content guidelines, moderators and screening software; Congress cites the decision when it writes Section 230 the following year.
Court treats Prodigy as a publisher; Congress cites the ruling when enacting Section 230.
The court distinguished an earlier case that had treated CompuServe as a distributor, and said that computer bulletin boards should normally be treated as distributors when they do not exercise significant editorial control over their content. Prodigy was different, it held, because it had held itself out to the public as controlling the content of its boards. The case settled in October 1995.
Sources
- 01.
Digital Media Law Project, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Legal-threats database entry from a Harvard-affiliated project. Source for the ruling date (24 May 1995), the court (New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County), and the holding that Prodigy's public statements claiming editorial control, its content guidelines, board leaders and screening software made it a publisher rather than a distributor of the allegedly defamatory posts; for the court's statement that bulletin boards should normally be considered distributors when they do not exercise significant editorial control; for its distinction of CompuServe; and for the October 1995 settlement. Also states that Congress intended the 1996 Communications Decency Act to overturn the ruling.
- 02.
U.S. House of Representatives, via U.S. Government Publishing Office. Telecommunications Act of 1996: Conference Report to Accompany S. 652 (H. Rept. 104-458). (1996). Conference report ordered printed 31 January 1996, read directly. In the explanation of Section 230 the conferees state that 'one of the specific purposes of this section is to overrule Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions.' Supports the ruling's consequence, not its date.
Page history
Reviewed Oct 27, 2026Recent changes
- Reviewed: 1 finding, all fixed AI review
- Page created Page created
Timeline
Timeline view for this event will display chronological context and related events.
Network Graph
Network visualization showing connections between this event and related entities.