Long before social media, this website was home to NetLitigation (“Internet Law: News, Suits, and Discussion”), one of the first online collections of lawsuits about the internet. Starting in the late 1990s, it summarized the court fights that shaped online speech, spam, linking and the responsibility of online services for what their users post. Wikipedia, Britannica, CNET, Slate, Computerworld and university textbooks still link to its case pages.
If an old link brought you here, the original pages are preserved in the Internet Archive. Each case below links to its archived page, and the original home page is archived too.
Today this site covers a new chapter of the same story: lawsuits by families who say social media companies designed their apps to hook children and teens.
Why These Early Cases Still Matter
In 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It says an online service is generally not treated as the publisher of what its users post. One of the first major rulings applying it, Zeran v. America Online, read that protection broadly, and for decades it has shielded internet companies from many lawsuits over user content.
Meta, TikTok, Snap and Google have relied on Section 230 in the social media addiction lawsuits. The families’ claims focus on something different: how the apps themselves were designed, including weak age checks and parental controls, and whether the companies warned parents about the risks. Courts have allowed many of those design and failure-to-warn claims to move forward, and juries have now heard them.
If social media harmed your child, Doyle APC handles these claims together with experienced co-counsel. Learn who may qualify or fill out the short form to see if your family may be eligible for compensation.
Free Speech Online
- Reno v. ACLU (1997). The Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act’s ban on “indecent” online speech and held that the internet deserves full First Amendment protection. Original page (archived)
- ApolloMedia Corp. v. Reno (1998). A website operator challenged the same law’s ban on sending “indecent” messages meant to annoy. The court read the ban to cover only obscenity and let it stand. Original page (archived)
- United States v. Thomas (1996). A California couple who ran an adult bulletin board were convicted in Tennessee under Tennessee’s community standards, an early case on which community’s rules apply online. Original page (archived)
- Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State. A graduate student challenged export rules that kept him from publishing his encryption software. A federal court ruled that computer source code is protected speech, and an appeals panel agreed before the government relaxed its rules. Original page (archived)
Who Is Responsible for What Users Post
- Zeran v. America Online (1997). A man was flooded with threatening calls after an anonymous user posted fake ads with his phone number. The court held that Section 230 barred his claims against AOL. Original page (archived)
- McVeigh v. Cohen (1998). The Navy moved to discharge a sailor after AOL confirmed his identity behind an anonymous profile. A federal judge blocked the discharge, in an early case on online privacy. Original page (archived)
- Raytheon v. John Does 1-21 (1999). Raytheon sued anonymous message board users and asked Yahoo for their identities, an early example of companies unmasking online critics. Original page (archived)
The original site’s overviews of online defamation and the law for internet service providers are archived as well.
Spam
- Cyber Promotions v. America Online (1996). A bulk emailer claimed a First Amendment right to send ads to AOL members. The court disagreed because AOL is a private company. Original page (archived)
- CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions (1997). The court ruled that flooding CompuServe’s system with unwanted email could be a trespass on its property and ordered the sender to stop. Original page (archived)
- EarthLink v. Cyber Promotions. EarthLink sued the same sender over spam that burdened its network and won a $2 million judgment in 1998, one of several suits that pushed bulk emailers off major services. Original page (archived)
The site’s spam overview tracked these and other early suits by internet providers against bulk emailers.
Linking and Framing
- Shetland Times v. Wills (1996). A Scottish newspaper won an early order against a rival site that linked directly to its stories using its headlines. Original page (archived)
- Washington Post v. TotalNews (1997). Major news publishers sued a site that displayed their stories inside its own frame with its own ads. The case settled when TotalNews agreed to stop framing. Original page (archived)
- Ticketmaster v. Microsoft (1997). Ticketmaster sued over links that sent users deep into its site, past its home page. The case settled in 1999. Original page (archived)
The site’s linking overview collected these and other disputes over links, frames and metatags.
Business and Technology
- United States v. Microsoft. The government’s antitrust case over Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. The trial court ordered a breakup, the appeals court reversed that remedy but upheld the finding that Microsoft illegally kept its monopoly, and the government settled. Original page (archived)
- Brower v. Gateway 2000 (1998). Customers challenged the terms shipped inside a computer box. A New York court enforced the arbitration clause but found its fee terms unfair. Original page (archived)
- Playboy Enterprises v. Welles. A former Playboy Playmate of the Year was allowed to describe herself that way on her own website. Original page (archived)
- Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group (1998). A court blocked an adult website from distributing a private video of two celebrities, an early ruling on privacy and online distribution. Original page (archived)
The site also covered personal jurisdiction, the question of where an online business can be sued.
Common Questions
What was this website?
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, this domain hosted NetLitigation, a collection of summaries, court documents and news about internet lawsuits. Lawyers, students and journalists used it, and many articles and encyclopedias still link to it.
Why did an old link bring me here?
The pages that older articles and encyclopedias link to are no longer on this site. Those links now lead here, where you can find a short summary of each case and a link to the original archived page.
Can I still see the original pages?
Yes. The Internet Archive saved copies of them. Each case above links to its archived page, which opens in a new tab.
What is Section 230?
It is a 1996 federal law that generally protects online services from being treated as the publisher of what their users post. It is a big reason internet companies have avoided many lawsuits over user content.
Does Section 230 block the social media addiction lawsuits?
Not entirely. The companies have argued that it does. The families’ claims focus on how the apps were designed and whether the companies warned about the risks, and courts have allowed many of those claims to go forward.
Who runs this site now?
Doyle APC, a San Diego law firm that represents people nationwide in mass tort cases. Doyle APC handles social media addiction claims together with experienced co-counsel. You can learn more about the firm.