Craigslist Sued For Violating Fair Housing Laws

The Good Reverend writes "The Associated Press has a report today about online classified site CraigsList being accused in a federal lawsuit of violating fair housing laws by publishing discriminatory classified ads. Current law, which applies to newspapers, prohibits ads that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, family status, religion, all of which can be found on Craigslist."

Comments

Well duh...

[wbren]

Well duh, it's Craigslist. I can also find prostitutes, free porn and Madeline dolls.

That explains it...

[wilburdg]

I was wondering why craigslist added the following text to all their housing related pages:

Fair Housing Is Everyone's Right

Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal

When making any posting on craigslist, you must comply with section 3604(c) of the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Re:That explains it...

[Phanatic1a]

Craigslist will be fine. Roommates.com was sued for the exact same behavior, supposedly violating the exact same statute, and they won an easy victory.

47 USC 230; craigslist wins

[Anonymous Coward]

End of story.

(although we're in the 7th Circuit, and the issue is therefore a little more subtle, you can bet your sweet bippy the above will be dispositive)

Re:Here is the difference. MONEY

[log0n]

I think you're confused. Or you've never used Craigslist.

It doesn't cost anything to post an ad on Craigslist. And there's no traditional internet advertising (ie google adsense, yahoo ads, etc) from which to generate revenue.

I'm not sure how Craig makes money, but I'm pretty sure it's not from advertising.

Speaking of ignorance...

[porkchop_d_clown]

There is plenty of case law that has upheld the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws such as the fair housing act. Congress did not intend to give online companies a pass on those acts and intentionally facilitate discrimination.

There's also plenty of case law saying that online services are not responsible for the content of messages published. There is no evidence that Craigslist itself was discriminating against anyone - particularly since they have procedures for removing any ads which trigger complaints.

On a related note...

[trims]

I'm not sure how the ruling will classify (no pun intended) the ads on Craigslist - though I suspect that since there is no fee involved, Craigslist will have Common Carrier or equivalent status - I'm all for holding on-line sites to the same standard as print newspapers, so long as it TRULY the same standard.

That said, the relevant sections of the Fair Housing Act do NOT apply to ads for roommates or those looking to share a place they do not own. The law involves the Owner (or the duly-empowered representative) and any prospective lessee. I'm a little fuzzy on sub-leasing, but since most of that is a huge gray market anyway (most rental contracts forbid subleasing, but it's commonly ignored), I suspect that it isn't covered in the F.H.A. Note that if you own the place, renting out the spare room does make you the landlord, and you have to abide by the F.H.A. But if you're a renter, and just looking for a roommate, well, the F.H.A. doesn't apply, and you can specify that only Left Handed, Purple Skined Demon Sycophants can apply to be your roommate.

Most likely, the suit will get a summary judgement and be punted. But it at least should make those services which DO charge think about complying with the F.H.A. Which is only, well, fair.

-Erik

Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ

[damsa]

Roommates fall outside of Fair Housing laws. You can discriminate all you want. You have the first amendment freedom of association clause to thank for that. The FHA applies to people renting apartments, houses and the like.

Re:The Actual postings...

[tmittz]

Not sure if he's specifically thinking of this act, but the Communications Decency Act will almost certainly protect them. The Ninth Circuit already came down in a very similar case (Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.Com, LLC., 33 Media L. Rep. 1636 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2005)) that the online ads were protected. While this certainly isn't binding on the present case, it is persuasive, and there are various other rulings that suggest the CDA is a very broad and powerful statute.

Re:The Actual postings...

[DerekLyons]

(IANAL)

And it shows.

If a newspaper prints discriminatory ads they're liable as they e3xercise editorial control. Thet know what they're printing and (in theory) know what they're allowed to print. They're a publisher.

True. They are also a publisher because they make information available to the public. (That's the argument bloggers are making in their efforts to be recognized as 'real journalists'.)

If I pin up an ad for a house to rent in a super market and then when somebody enquires via the telephone and I say I only want 19 yr old blond nymphomaniacs as tennants, can you sue the phone company? No. Why? As a common carrier Bell cannot control what is being said.

True. But note an important distinction, Bell facilitates communications, it does not publish. It's equally free of liability no matter who posts the ad where. You'll also note that many supermarkets do act as a sort of publisher, as they not only make the information (ad) available, they exercise a measure of editorial control. Every one with which I am familiar routinely polices it's public notice board and removes offensive or overage ads.

CL is a common carrier, not a publisher your honour. Move to dismiss.

CL provides editorial control - it sorts and categorizes the advertisements. It publishes in that it amalgamates ads and makes them public (which Bell does not). It actively edits the content of the site. CL is not a common carrier. (That's how BBS systems remained common carriers, there was no editing or moderation of posts, while Prodigy was ruled to not be a common carrier - they did provide mechanisms for editing and moderation.)

Re:Here is the difference. MONEY

[pluggo]

Several content providers (most often, but not exclusively, AOL) have been sued for content posted to their system. However, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects content distributors from being held liable for the content of postings made by users. It makes no mention of money; indeed, AOL charges its subscribers for access and has won numerous court cases on the basis of section 230.

I feel so dirty... I just defended AOL and the CDA in a single post. Oh well... :)