Section 230 Still Applies to Email Forwarding–Motekaitis v. USI

Motekaitis and Kneass worked for USI. There were rumors about the circumstances of their departure. Marsh & McLennan (MMA) was contemplating hiring Motekaitis, but then an email from a USI employee (Kane) about Motekaitis spooked MMA. MMA employees allegedly circulated the Kane email internally and externally. Among other beefs, Motekaitis sued MMA for defamation by forwarding the Kane email.

This turns into an easy Section 230 dismissal. The court takes two elements off the table immediately: “Plaintiffs do not contest that MMA was a user of an interactive computer service, nor that MMA received the Kane Email from another information content provider.” A reminder that Section 230 protects Internet providers AND USERS. In other words, Section 230 isn’t only for “big tech.” It benefits EVERYONE ON THE INTERET.

Motekaitis argued that MMA added content that also defamed him, but the complaint didn’t actually say this. Thus,

Featuring no allegation that MMA employees did anything regarding the content of the email other than to “hit the forward icon,” Plaintiffs’ defamation claim against MMA is accordingly barred as a matter of law

Cites to Phan v. Pham (pretty much directly on point…and from 2010) and Barrett v. Rosenthal (from 2006!).

Motekaitis claims he could amend the complaint to show that MMA prefaced the forwarded email with the following statement: Motekaitis “had the largest book in the state of California (now we know how).” Citing Phan, the court says that Section 230 would still apply to the forwarded part, and the introduction doesn’t disqualify that. “His quippy introduction is quite contrary to the sort of contribution that the Ninth Circuit has recognized as fatal to Section 230 immunity.” The court also cautions that pushing the introduction issue further may run into California’s anti-SLAPP law, with its mandatory attorneys’ fee shift.

I’ve always had a special fascination for the email forwarding cases. On the surface, Section 230’s application seems weird. An email user isn’t Google or Facebook, and they are just forwarding emails, not calibrating giant editorial algorithms. But based on 230’s doctrinal principles, email forwarding cases are squarely in the heartland of Section 230. The email forwarder is making editorial decisions about disseminating third-party content. That’s 230 all the way.

Case Citation: Motekaitis v. USI Insurance Services, LLC, 2025 WL 711113 (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2025)

Prior Blog Posts on Email Forwarding and Related Activities

• Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to “Editorializing” About Third-Party Content–Marvin v. Lanctot
• Section 230 Protects Emailing an Article–Monge v. University of Pennsylvania
• Section 230 Protects a User Sharing an Allegedly Defamatory Facebook Event–AH v. Labana
• Another Court Says Section 230 Applies to Retweeting–Holmok v. Burke
• Section 230 Protects Retweeting–Banaian v. Bascom
• Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to Publication of Private Emails–Crowley v. Faison
• Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Quote-Tweeting–US Dominion v. Byrne
• First Circuit Says Mirroring Qualifies for Section 230–Monsarrat v. Newman
• Mirroring Qualifies for Section 230–Monsarrat v. Newman
• Judge Balks At Section 230 Protection For Email Forwarding–Samsel v. DeSoto County School District
• Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Email Forwarding of Screenshotted Tweets?–Maxfield v. Maxfield
• Another Case Says No Liability for Linking to Allegedly Defamatory Content, Plus a Recap (Guest Blog Post)
• Section 230 Immunizes Links to Defamatory Third Party Content–Directory Assistants v. Supermedia
• Emailing the URL of an Allegedly Defamatory Post Immunized by 47 USC 230–Shrader v. Biddinger
• Forwarding Defamatory Email Immunized by 47 USC 230–Mitan v. A. Neumann
• Forwarding Defamatory Email with Introductory Comments Protected by 47 USC 230–Phan v. Pham
• Online Defamation Action Can Have Only One Defendant–Novins v. Cannon
• Republishing Solicited Email May Not Qualify for 47 USC 230 Immunization–Woodhull v. Meinel
• Barrett v. Rosenthal–California Issues Terrific Defense-Favorable Interpretation of 47 USC 230
• Griper Gets 47 USC 230 Defense for Reposted Article–D’Alonzo v. Truscello
• Batzel v. Smith Dismissal