In Word of God Fellowship v. Vimeo, No. 15460, 2022 WL 839409 (1st Dep't March 22, 2022), the First Department dismissed claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, holding that an Internet service provider's good faith decision to remove content that it considers objectionable is immune from liability under §230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. As the First Department noted, "[i]f service providers had to justify those decisions in court, or if plaintiffs could circumvent immunity through unsupported accusations of bad faith, section 230 would be a dead letter. This is as true for commercial users as for any other plaintiff." Id.

Plaintiff Daystar Television Network, self-described as "an evangelical Christian-based television network," alleged that defendant Vimeo, a video hosting, sharing and services platform, improperly removed from its platform five videos streamed by Daystar and hosted on Vimeo's platform. Among the thousands of videos that Daystar uploaded to defendant's platform were five videos claiming a causal link between vaccines and childhood autism. On July 17, 2020, Vimeo wrote to Daystar that these videos violated Vimeo's Acceptable Use Policy which prohibits "any content" that "makes false or misleading claims about vaccination safety," and asked Daystar to remove those videos. When Daystar did not remove the videos, Vimeo did so itself. Daystar then commenced the action, asserting claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment and seeking rescission and damages.

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted Vimeo's motion to dismiss, holding that Vimeo's decision to remove the five vaccine-related videos based on its posted "Content Restrictions" was cloaked with immunity under §230 of the Communications Decency Act. See Word of God Fellowship v. Vimeo, No. 653735/2020, 2021 WL 483954, at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 5, 2021). The court explained that §230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes providers like Vimeo in cases such as this one, stating that: "No provider … of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of … any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Id. at *1. The court held that even if Vimeo were not protected by the federal immunity statute, Daystar had failed to state a claim for breach of contract because "Vimeo acted in good faith when it determined, consistent with the generally accepted view, that it was misleading to suggest that vaccines cause autism, and Vimeo's decision to remove the five videos was in accordance with its Terms of Service." Id. at *2.