ShareA California federal court has considered whether a website violated the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) by allowing users to post statements which allegedly demonstrated discriminatory preferences.
Roommate.com, LLC (“Website”) operates a website which serves as a roommate locater service. The Website allows users to post notices about residences that they have available for leasing and also allows users to post notices about residences they are willing to share. Basic membership is free and allows the user to create a personal profile, search the database, and send messages to other users. Membership requires the authoring of a personal profile, which is based on the user’s answers to a series of questions about topics such as the user’s age, gender, sexual orientation, and number of children. Under its terms of service, the Website states that it does not screen posts on the site and that users are “entirely responsible” for the content they post.
The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego (collectively, “Councils”) filed a lawsuit against the Website. The lawsuit alleged violations of the FHA as well as violations of California state laws. The Councils alleged that the Website violated the FHA in three different ways. First, it allowed users to choose nicknames for themselves which demonstrated a discriminatory intent, such as Whiteboy or Blackguy. Second, the Website allowed users to write essays in which users set forth discriminatory preferences, such as “looking for straight Christian male.” Finally, the Councils argued that the Website’s questionnaire required users to provide information about their gender, age, sexual orientation, occupation, and familial status. The Website argued that it was shielded from immunity by the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). Both parties filed motions with the trial court seeking judgment in their favor.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the Website on the FHA allegations and dismissed the remaining state law claims. The FHA makes it illegal to “make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” The Council’s FHA claims related to the Website’s role as a publisher of the allegedly discriminatory statements on the Website.
The court considered whether the CDA shielded the Website from the Council’s lawsuit. The CDA contains a provision which states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The CDA clarifies its effect on other laws by specifically exempting its effect on federal criminal laws, intellectual property laws, and certain federal privacy laws. The CDA does not mention the FHA.
The court found that it was the first court to address the effect of the CDA on the FHA’s prohibitions on publishing discriminatory statements related to the sale or leasing of property. Since the CDA did not address the FHA but did specifically name other laws that were exempt from the CDA’s shield, the court stated that it could not create an exemption for the FHA without some evidence of a contrary legislative intent.
Looking at other courts who had considered the CDA’s shield, a federal appellate court had ruled in favor of an Internet dating site in a lawsuit which was also based on a questionnaire the site required users to complete. The other court had ruled that the users were the source of the information and the dating website could not be considered an “information provider” or “publisher”. As in that case, the court here determined that because third parties provided the content of the Website and the Website exercised no control over the content, the CDA shielded the Website from the Council’s FHA lawsuit. The court did note that the CDA did not stop the Councils from enforcing the FHA’s publishing restrictions against specific users of the Website, since the users were responsible for the content of their posts. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Website on the FHA claims and dismissed the remaining state law allegations, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider those allegations.
Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC, No. CV 03-09386PA (RZX), 2005 WL 3299077 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2005). [This is a citation to a Westlaw document. Westlaw is a subscription, online legal research service. If an official reporter citation should become available for this case, the citation will be updated to reflect this information].