Section 230 Applies to Gamer’s Complaints About Griefing–Haymore v. Amazon

This is a pro se/in pro per lawsuit. Andrew Grant Haymore played the MMORPG “New World” and used the New World discord server, from which he was banned. He alleges the ban diminished his investment of 10k hours and $1,700 into the game. He sued Amazon for $7B in compensatory damages and $70B in punitive damages. He doesn’t get a dime.

His complaint alleges that other New World players cyberbullied, cyberstalked, and griefed him. The court treats his claims against Amazon as an easy Section 230 case:

ICS Provider. New World qualifies.

Publisher/Speaker Claim.

Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Amazon based on its role publishing and transmitting allegedly harmful user-generated messages within the New World video game. This theory falls in the heartland of Section 230 because it seeks to premise liability on Amazon’s alleged publication and dissemination of the third-party speech it makes available on its services. The only way Amazon could avoid liability on Plaintiff’s theory is by declining to publish the allegedly harmful user messages, and by monitoring all content available on its platforms to ensure that access to any harmful content—here, “cyberbullying”—is removed. Section 230 protects online services from exactly this type of claim.

Third-Party Content. “Plaintiff’s claims also concern “harassing” comments posted by other New World “users,” not content that originated with Amazon itself.”

The court concludes its Section 230 discussion: “Section 230 precludes claims that the design of New World facilitated harmful speech by other players or that Amazon otherwise failed to regulate those players’ speech….Amazon is immunized from liability for the statements (“grief” and “griefing”) made by other players within New World.”

Other Topics

Haymore also attacked the way Amazon ran the game, including its gameplay design. The court doesn’t take the bait:

Amazon’s action in failing to design a game the way Plaintiff wants and in banning him from the game cannot rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous”…

Plaintiff’s belief that New World has become unplayable for certain players like himself is not outrageous. Being banned from a game platform also cannot be outrageous conduct. A social media company is not liable for IIED when it disables a user’s account due to a purported violation of the platform’s community standards

Jargon Watch. Haymore made a reference to the game’s “dungeon lobby,” prompting this footnote from the court: “It is not entirely clear what the ‘dungeon lobby’ is, though, through context, it would seemingly be a virtual space within New World.” I did a search in the Westlaw and Lexis databases, and this appears to be the first caselaw reference to “dungeon lobby.”

Case Citation: Haymore v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2024 WL 4825253 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024)