Section 230 Protects Public Records Portal, Says Judge While Tossing Bogus ID Theft Lawsuit

TechDirt provided comprehensive coverage of a landmark legal victory for OPRAmachine creator Gavin Rozzi, affirming Section 230 protections for public records platforms and featuring extensive quotes highlighting the spurious nature of the lawsuit and its broader implications for government transparency tools.

The Case Background

Three North Wildwood police officers filed a class action lawsuit under the Identity Theft Protection Act after city clerk W. Scott Jett released unredacted documents containing their social security numbers in response to an OPRA request. Rather than sue the city that made the error, the officers targeted OPRAmachine and its creator Gavin Rozzi, a third-party platform that automatically published the records.

Upon notification of the redaction failure, OPRAmachine immediately removed the documents, properly redacted them, and republished them. Despite this responsible response, Rozzi and the platform faced litigation that threatened the future of public records transparency tools.

Legal Victory

After initially losing on some counts, Rozzi successfully filed a motion for reconsideration. On May 17, 2023, Superior Court Judge Ralph A. Paolone granted the motion, dismissing all remaining counts against OPRAmachine and Rozzi, and affirming the platform’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from liability related to third-party content, including public records uploaded to the website.

TechDirt noted this was “a resounding defeat for the three officers who couldn’t sue straight” and praised Rozzi for securing a critical victory for government transparency platforms.

TechDirt’s Analysis

Author Tim Cushing emphasized the broader implications:

“Section 230: not just for those irascible tech giants politicians keep grandstanding about. We all may have a love/hate/really hate relationship with various social media services, but Section 230 also protects the little guys. So, while it might be momentarily satisfying to cheer on the latest comeuppance attempt by political opportunists, remember it’s going to be the little guys who get hurt the most.”

The article highlighted several problematic aspects of the plaintiffs’ case:

• Officers refused free identity theft monitoring offered by the city while claiming to be at risk
• Plaintiffs’ attorneys cited an overturned district court case in their briefs
• The law firm had previously argued the opposite legal position in federal court when representing the Internet Archive
• Multiple missed deadlines demonstrated lack of diligence

Impact on Government Transparency

The ruling establishes critical precedent protecting platforms that facilitate government transparency from liability for content provided by government agencies themselves. This protection is essential for:

• Enabling automated public records request systems
• Protecting civic technology platforms from frivolous litigation
• Ensuring Section 230 benefits extend beyond large tech companies
• Supporting digital tools that enhance government accountability

Rozzi’s Response to the Victory

TechDirt extensively quoted Rozzi’s response to the legal victory, highlighting what the publication described as “verbally smacking the cops and their litigation team around for engaging in such obviously stupid litigation.”

On the plaintiffs’ credibility:

“It is intriguing that despite the City of North Wildwood offering free identity theft monitoring to the plaintiffs, they chose not to take advantage of it. Now, they claim they are at risk. These inconsistencies raise doubts about the credibility of their claims and ability to serve as class representatives.”

On the lawsuit itself:

“This case should have never been brought as it flew in the face of federal law. The unprofessional behavior exhibited by Barry and Lezama-Simonson throughout this case is deeply disappointing. They cited an overturned district court case in their briefs in a cavalier attempt to mislead the court and repeatedly missed deadlines, displaying a lack of diligence and disregard for legal procedure. It was clear that they were both out of their depths here. This outcome totally disproves the malicious lies about myself and OPRAmachine contained in their complaint.”

TechDirt also featured Rozzi’s observation about opposing counsel’s conflicting positions, noting that Frank Corrado, a partner in the plaintiffs’ firm, “previously represented the Internet Archive and argued the exact opposite legal position in federal court, so this firm clearly should have known better before pursuing this dead-end theory of liability against OPRAmachine.”

The outcome demonstrates how Section 230 protections are crucial for smaller civic technology platforms that serve the public interest by making government information more accessible. The ruling helps ensure these platforms aren’t turned into settlement fodder for opportunistic litigation.

Precedent for Civic Technology

This decision represents a significant win for civic technology and government transparency platforms, establishing that Section 230’s protections apply robustly to automated systems that facilitate public access to government records. The case serves as an important example of how federal law protects platforms hosting third-party government content, even when government agencies make errors in preparing that content.