Jump to content

Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Full case name Alexander G. Lunney v. Prodigy Services Company, et al.
DecidedDecember 2 1999
Citation723 N.E.2d 539; 94 N.Y.2d 242; 701 N.Y.S.2d 684
Case history
Prior historyDefendant's motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct. Westchester Cty., July 2, 1997; renewed motion for summary judgment denied, Sup. Ct., Jan. 14, 1998; rev'd, 250 A.D.2d 230 (1999)
Subsequent historyCert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098 (2000)
Holding
An internet chatroom provider could not be considered the publisher of defamatory material posted by an imposter account because of its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms. Appellate Division affirmed.
Court membership
Chief judgeJudith S. Kaye
Associate judgesJoseph W. Bellacosa, George Bundy Smith, Howard A. Levine, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Richard C. Wesley, Albert M. Rosenblatt
Case opinions
MajorityRosenblatt, joined by Kaye, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley
Bellacosa took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Lunney v. Prodigy Services Co., 94 N.Y.2d 242 (1999) is a leading U.S. law case on liability of internet service providers for defamation. The court held that Prodigy, an internet chatroom provider, was not considered a publisher of defamatory material posted from an imposter account due to its passive role in monitoring the chatrooms.

[edit]