Answers Discussion: Appropriation and personal data. ([Regulation in the Digital World (10-3)]

Should the appropriation tort apply to an individual’s personal data?

A plaintiff must prove the following three elements to support a claim of appropriation:

-An appropriation,

-Without consent, and

-Of one's name or likeness for another's use or benefit [Dwyer v. Am. Exp. Co., 273 Ill. App. 3d 742, 748, 652 N.E.2d 1351, 1355 (1995)].

Would this be a workable approach to the issue? Why or why not?

Answer: Answers will vary. Pro-appropriation arguments: An individual should have the right to her own data. Individuals should be paid for the use of their personal data, just like for a picture.

Anti-appropriation arguments: Extending this appropriation tort to cover personal data would be damaging to business. The development of internet commerce would be halted by fear of appropriation claims.

Discussion: Can immunity go too far? ([Regulation in the Digital World (10-3)]

Revisit the facts of the Dyroff At what point would a website lose CDA Immunity under Section 230? What happens when Section 230 immunity collides with another law?

Answer: Answers will vary. In the case of Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), Roommates.com operated a platform that allowed users to find roommates. Roommates.com users had to complete a profile that included information such as gender, number of children, and race. The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley brought suit, alleging the questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act because users could discriminate based on answers. Due to these questions, the website was classified as an information content provider. The Court held that the portion of Roommates.com’s site that hosted the questionnaire was not entitled to Section 230 immunity.