ICANN Not a State Actor
McNeil v. VeriSign, Inc., 2005 WL 741939 (9th Cir. April 1, 2005). The Ninth Circuit ruled (in an unpublished opinion) that ICANN is not a state actor. According to my research, I’ve found the following cases holding that private Internet entities are not state actors:
CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997)
America Online, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996)
Name.Space, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 F.3d 573 (2d Cir. 2000)
Island Online, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc. 119 F. Supp. 2d 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)
Nat’l A-1 Adver. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D. N.H. 2000)
Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
The McNeil case now makes at least seven cases. I have not found any cases to the contrary. Am I missing any? What room is left for plaintiffs to argue that any Internet entity is a state actor?
(Hat tip to David Sorkin).