Back in June, I noted an interesting case described by Evan Brown. PDX v. Hardin involves Section 230 immunity for a software provider whose software was used to produce truncated medication monographs that omitted drug warnings. The modification in their software had been made at their client’s (Safeway’s) request. It’s not the type of case I’d typically include on PHIprivacy.net, but since it potentially impacts other healthcare-related software providers, I thought it worth noting.
Now Eric Goldman has a follow-up to the case. After providing a summary of the case that you may find helpful, he writes:
Thus, PDX functioned purely as an electronic network transmitting WKH’s monographs to Safeway for presentation to Safeway’s patients. Being the cheese in this electronic sandwich, PDX seems like it should qualify for Section 230’s immunity. The California Appeals Court disagreed because PDX “intentionally modified its software to allow Safeway to distribute abbreviated drug monographs that automatically omitted warnings of serious risks.”
Six Internet Law professors filed a letter to the California Supreme Court supporting PDX’s request to review the case.
[…]
We note the problems associated with denying Section 230 for coding software to truncate third party content, because content truncation is ubiquitous and often helpful in the UGC world. Plus, at minimum, a “content truncation” workaround to Section 230 gives plaintiffs a powerful tool for mischief.
Read more on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.