Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 11th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 1

ADAPTING THE LAW TO THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT
Revenge Porn and Invasion of Privacy
Every digital device today takes photos and videos at virtually no cost. Software allows the recording of conversations via Skype. Many couples immortalize their "private moments" using such digital devices. One partner may take a racy "selfie" and send it as an attachment to a text message to the other partner, for example.
Occasionally, after a couple breaks off their relationship, one of them seeks a type of digital revenge. The result, called revenge porn, has been defined in the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative as "The online distribution of sexually explicit images of a non-consenting individual with the intent to humiliate that person." Until relatively recently, few states had criminal statutes that covered revenge porn. Therefore, victims have sued on the basis of (1) invasion of privacy, (2) public disclosure of private facts, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
It Is More Than Just Pictures and Videos
The most egregious form of revenge porn occurs when the perpetuator provides detailed information about the victim. Such information may include the victim's name, Facebook page, address, and phone number, as well as the victim's workplace and children's names. This information, along with the sexually explicit photos and videos, are posted on hosting Web sites. Many such Web sites have been shut down, as was the case with IsAnybodyDown and Texxxan.com. But others are still active, usually with offshore servers and foreign domain-name owners.
The Injurious Results of Revenge Porn
To be sure, victims of revenge porn suffer extreme embarrassment. They may also have their reputations ruined. Some have lost their jobs. A number of victims have been stalked in the physical world and harassed online and offline. When attempts at having offending photos removed from Web sites have failed, victims have changed their phone numbers and sometimes their names.
A Class Action Lawsuit
Hollie Toups, along with twenty-two other female plaintiffs, sued the domain name registrar and Web hosting company GoDaddy in a Texas court. Although GoDaddy did not create the defamatory and offensive material at issue, GoDaddy knew of the content and did not remove it. The plaintiffs asserted causes of action "for intentional infliction of emotional distress," among other claims. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that "by its knowing participation in these unlawful activities, GoDaddy has also committed the intentional Texas tort of invasion of privacy... as well as intrusion on Plaintiffs' right to seclusion, the public disclosure of their private facts, [and] the wrongful appropriation of their names and likenesses...." GoDaddy sought to dismiss the case, and an appeals court eventually granted GoDaddy's motion to dismiss.
Another Texas woman had better luck. In a jury trial in early 2014, she won a $500,000 award. The woman's ex-boyfriend had uploaded videos to YouTube and other sites. At the time she made the complaint, revenge porn was not a crime in Texas.
Should domain name hosting companies be liable for revenge porn