Nagy v. Fred Albrecht Grocery

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a website developed the information by “soliciting] requests” for the information and then “pa[ying] researchers to obtain it”
• holding that a computer service “that is also an ‘information content provider’ of certain content is not immune from liability arising from publication of that content.”
• holding that defendant service was a publisher because it “affirmatively solicited” the challenged content
• concluding that a website was also content creator and not mere conduit
• explaining that under a long-standing canon of statutory interpretation, the terms “created” and “developed” must mean something different
• denying immunity where a website intentionally made illegal purchases of confidential consumer information

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).