Case Citation
Legal Case Name

CUBBY, INC. v. COMPUSERVE INC. Case Brief

United States District Court, S.D. New York1991
776 F.Supp. 135 Torts First Amendment Law Internet Law Agency

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: An online service provider was sued for defamatory content posted by a third party on its platform. The court found the provider was a distributor, not a publisher, and granted summary judgment because it lacked knowledge of the defamatory statements.

Legal Significance: This seminal case established that an online service provider is treated as a distributor for defamation liability purposes, holding it liable for third-party content only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamatory material, thereby avoiding publisher liability.

CUBBY, INC. v. COMPUSERVE INC. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Defendant CompuServe Inc. operated an online information service (CIS) that hosted numerous special interest forums. One such forum, the Journalism Forum, was managed by an independent contractor, Cameron Communications, Inc. (CCI). CCI, in turn, contracted with another independent entity, Don Fitzpatrick Associates (DFA), to publish a daily newsletter called “Rumorville.” Plaintiffs Cubby, Inc. and Robert Blanchard developed a competing electronic newsletter, “Skuttlebut.” Rumorville published allegedly defamatory statements about Blanchard and described Skuttlebut as a “new start-up scam.” CompuServe had no editorial control over Rumorville’s content, which was uploaded directly by DFA and made immediately available to subscribers. CompuServe had no direct contractual relationship with DFA and asserted it had no knowledge of the specific statements before the lawsuit was filed. Plaintiffs sued CompuServe for libel, business disparagement, and unfair competition based on the statements published in Rumorville.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is an online information service provider that makes third-party content available on its platform liable as a publisher for defamatory statements within that content, or is it considered a distributor liable only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamation?

The court held that CompuServe was a distributor and granted its motion Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Is an online information service provider that makes third-party content available on its platform liable as a publisher for defamatory statements within that content, or is it considered a distributor liable only if it knew or had reason to know of the defamation?

Conclusion

This case established a foundational rule for internet intermediary liability, immunizing online Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehende

Legal Rule

An online information service provider that lacks editorial control over third-party content Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Legal Analysis

The court distinguished between a publisher, who is traditionally subject to liability Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • An online service provider (OSP) that exercises no editorial control over
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur s

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+