Right to Remove

Home / Guides

Section 230 explained: why websites will not remove lies about you

One sentence of federal law decides who is responsible for what you read online. Here is what it does, what it does not do, and what states can still do.

Updated October 29, 2026. General information about California and federal law, not legal advice.

The short answer. Section 230 says websites are not legally treated as the publisher of what their users post. That means a site hosting lies about you usually cannot be sued for them, and has no legal reason to take them down. The person who wrote the post is still responsible.

The 26 words

The core of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, reads: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1))

In plain terms, if someone else wrote it, the site that hosts it, the search engine that indexes it, and even a person who shares it are generally not liable for it as if they had written it themselves.

How courts have applied it

  • Broad protection for platforms. Since Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), courts have held that platforms cannot be sued for defamation over user content, even after being told it is false.
  • Protection for users who repost. The California Supreme Court held in Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006) that people who republish someone else's online content are also protected.
  • No removal order against a nonparty site. In Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal.5th 522 (2018), Yelp could not be ordered to remove reviews a court had already found defamatory, because Yelp was not a party to the lawsuit.
  • Limits when a site helps create content. A site that materially contributes to what makes content unlawful can lose protection (Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)).

What Section 230 does not cover

  • The author. Whoever wrote the false post can be sued.
  • Federal criminal law. Platforms can still be prosecuted under federal criminal statutes.
  • Intellectual property. Copyright claims, including DMCA takedown notices, are not blocked.
  • Sex trafficking. The 2018 FOSTA law created exceptions for sex trafficking claims.
  • Intimate images. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act separately requires covered platforms to remove reported nonconsensual intimate images within 48 hours.

Why this leaves victims stuck

Section 230 was written to let the internet grow without every site being sued over every post. It largely succeeded. But for a private person targeted by false claims, it means the companies with the power to remove content have no legal duty to act, and the only party who can be held responsible may be anonymous, judgment proof or out of reach.

What a state can still do

California cannot rewrite Section 230. It can change the tools available against the people who post false content, and how fast courts can rule. Our proposal works inside federal law:

  • A fast court process to declare a specific post false, which search engines and hosts already treat as a basis for removal
  • A ban on sites charging people to remove content about them, which targets the site's own conduct
  • A clear procedure to identify anonymous posters when there is real evidence of defamation or harassment

Common questions

Does Section 230 protect the person who wrote the post?

No. Section 230 protects platforms and users from being treated as the publisher of content someone else created. The author of a false post can still be sued for it.

Can California change Section 230?

No. Section 230 is federal law, and it expressly preempts state laws that are inconsistent with it. States can still regulate conduct that falls outside it, such as how the authors of content are held responsible and what courts can order them to do.

Does Section 230 apply to copyright?

No. Intellectual property claims are excluded, which is why a DMCA takedown notice for a photo you own is often more effective than a defamation complaint.

Can a court order a website to remove content it found defamatory?

In Hassell v. Bird (2018), the California Supreme Court held that Yelp, which was not a party to the case, could not be ordered to remove reviews already found defamatory. Courts can order the author to remove content, and many sites and search engines voluntarily act on such orders.

This guide explains the law in general terms and may not fit your situation. Deadlines in these cases are short, so talk to a California lawyer about your facts. The State Bar of California certifies lawyer referral services.