Online Disputes Attorney
Online disputes span an unusually wide range of legal doctrines: federal communications law, state tort and contract law, and emerging AI liability frameworks. David Newman Brunk is an Oregon civil litigation attorney who handles the full range of online legal disputes — from online defamation and platform account terminations to privacy torts and claims arising from coordinated online harassment.
I. Platform Product Liability: The Emerging Challenge to Section 230
For decades, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) gave social media platforms near-absolute immunity from civil liability for content posted by users. That immunity is now under sustained legal pressure through a product liability theory that bypasses Section 230 entirely.
The central argument, advanced in the consolidated federal litigation In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047, N.D. Cal.), is that platforms' algorithmic recommendation systems are themselves a defective product — distinct from the third-party content they surface. Because Section 230 protects platforms as publishers of user content, not as designers of engagement-maximizing machine learning systems, plaintiffs argue these design defect claims fall outside its scope. Dozens of states and thousands of individual plaintiffs have filed related suits against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube.
The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Gonzalez v. Google LLC (598 U.S. 617) declined to limit Section 230 through statutory interpretation, preserving broad platform immunity for content recommendation — but the product liability theory was not before the Court, and the MDL continues. Courts have reached conflicting conclusions on whether the design-defect theory survives Section 230. This remains one of the most consequential unsettled questions in internet law.
II. Online Defamation and Cancel Culture
Oregon defamation law applies fully to statements made on social media, review platforms, and other online forums. The elements — false statement of fact, publication, fault, and harm — are unchanged by the medium. What changes is the evidentiary and procedural landscape.
Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute (ORS 31.150–31.155) is the most significant procedural feature of Oregon defamation litigation. It permits a defendant to file a special motion to strike against any claim arising from the defendant's speech or petition activity on a matter of public concern. If the defendant makes that showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim. A failed challenge results in mandatory attorney fees for the defendant. The statute is frequently invoked in social media defamation cases and has real deterrent force against speculative suits.
Coordinated "cancel culture" campaigns present distinct legal challenges. When multiple individuals engage in a sustained public criticism campaign, separating actionable defamation from protected opinion is analytically difficult. The First Amendment protects hyperbole, satire, and expressions of opinion even when they are harsh. However, statements that imply specific false facts — particularly in factual-seeming formats like screenshots, timelines, or posts styled as factual accounts — can cross into actionable territory. Context matters: the same statement on a satirical account may be protected while on a news-styled aggregator account it may not be.
III. Intentional Interference with Economic Relations (IIER)
Where a defamation claim requires a false statement, intentional interference with economic relations (IIER) addresses the broader category of improper interference with a person's business relationships. Under Oregon law, following the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B, the elements are: (1) existence of a business relationship or prospective economic advantage; (2) intentional interference by the defendant; (3) improper means or motive; and (4) resulting damage.
Social media has created new mechanisms for IIER: coordinated negative review campaigns, mass-reporting of accounts to trigger algorithmic suppression or termination, organized contact with a person's employers or advertisers to pressure them to sever the relationship, and targeted harassment designed to force someone off a platform. These tactics, when undertaken with the purpose of causing economic harm rather than genuinely communicating opinion or engaging in legitimate competition, can constitute IIER even when no single statement is technically defamatory.
IV. Privacy Torts: Intrusion, Disclosure, and False Light
Oregon recognizes three privacy torts with significant application to social media conduct. Intrusion upon seclusion arises where a defendant intentionally intrudes — physically or electronically — upon the plaintiff's private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person. Unauthorized access to a private account, interception of direct messages, or screen-recording private video calls can all constitute intrusion. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) provides a parallel federal claim for unauthorized computer access.
Public disclosure of private facts provides a remedy when a defendant publishes private information that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation would remain private, and where the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern. This tort addresses doxxing — the publication of home addresses, phone numbers, financial information, or other personal data — and the unauthorized republication of private messages or images.
False light differs from defamation in that it does not require a technically false statement. It instead addresses the publication of information that places the plaintiff in a false and highly offensive light in the public eye, with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity of the impression created. Selectively edited screenshots, misleading compilations of out-of-context quotes, and deceptively cropped images can support false light claims even when each individual element depicted is technically accurate.
V. Oregon Workplace Social Media Privacy (ORS 659A.330)
Oregon was among the early states to enact legislation protecting employees' personal social media accounts from employer access. ORS 659A.330 prohibits Oregon employers from requiring or requesting that employees or job applicants provide passwords or login credentials to personal social media accounts, compelling access to such accounts in the employer's presence, or taking adverse action against any individual who refuses to comply. The statute applies to all Oregon employers regardless of size, and violations can give rise to civil claims.
The statute is part of a broader framework of employee privacy protections that intersects with Oregon's identity theft statute (ORS 165.800) and federal computer access laws. Employers who access employee accounts after separation — for example, through shared passwords established during employment — may face both statutory and common law claims.
VI. FTC Disclosure Requirements for Paid Promotions
The FTC's revised Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255), substantially updated in 2023, require that any material connection between an endorser and the brand being promoted be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A material connection includes compensation, free products, employment, and family relationships. The disclosure must be unavoidable and understandable to a general audience — a small "#ad" buried among a string of hashtags does not satisfy the requirement.
The FTC has pursued enforcement against both individual influencers and the brands that hire them, issuing civil investigative demands and warning letters at scale. Liability can flow in both directions: an influencer who fails to disclose violates the Guides, and a brand that directs or permits undisclosed endorsements shares liability. State consumer protection laws — including Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.605 et seq.) — may independently reach undisclosed paid promotion activity.
VII. AI-Generated Content and Emerging Liability Frameworks
Generative AI introduces novel liability questions that existing doctrines address imperfectly. When an AI system generates defamatory content about a real person, questions arise about who bears liability: the platform operator, the user who issued the prompt, or both. Section 230 protects platforms from liability for user-generated content, but its application to AI-generated outputs — where the platform's own system is the author — is actively contested.
Right-of-publicity claims arise when AI systems generate images, voice clones, or written content that mimics a real person's likeness or persona for commercial purposes without consent. Oregon has a right-of-publicity statute (ORS 646.607), and the state's common law also recognizes this right. The FTC has signaled that impersonation by AI constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, and its 2024 rule amendments specifically addressed AI-generated impersonation.
AI-generated "deepfake" content presents particular issues for defamation doctrine: a realistic-seeming video or audio clip of a person saying or doing something false may be more damaging than text-based defamation, and the production barriers that historically limited sophisticated fabrication no longer apply. Oregon has not yet enacted deepfake-specific legislation, but existing defamation, false light, and right-of-publicity doctrine can reach AI-generated content under appropriate facts.
VIII. Account Terminations, Platform Contracts, and DMCA
Platform terms of service are contracts, and Oregon courts apply standard contract principles to them including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Where a platform terminates an account or removes content in express violation of its own stated terms or policies, a breach of contract claim may lie. Section 230(c)(2) expressly permits platforms to take good-faith moderation actions and provides a separate immunity for those decisions, making platform contract claims difficult but not impossible.
Where account or content removal followed a DMCA takedown notice (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)), a counter-notice procedure is available. A valid counter-notice triggers a 10–14 business day window for content restoration unless the claimant files suit. Sending a knowingly false DMCA notice or counter-notice subjects the sender to damages, costs, and attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
Frequently Asked Questions
Can social media platforms be sued for product liability?
Increasingly yes, under product liability theories that argue the platform's algorithmic recommendation system is itself a defective product — not third-party content, and therefore outside Section 230 immunity. This theory is the basis of the ongoing federal MDL against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube. Courts have allowed some such claims to proceed, though the law remains unsettled. The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Gonzalez v. Google preserved Section 230 but did not resolve the product design defect theory.
Can I sue someone for defamation on social media in Oregon?
Yes. Oregon defamation law applies fully to social media posts. You must show a false statement of fact, publication, fault, and harm. The critical strategic factor is Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute (ORS 31.150): if the defendant can characterize the suit as targeting protected speech on a matter of public concern, the burden shifts to you to show a probability of prevailing — or face early dismissal with attorney fees. Suits without a strong factual predicate carry real cost risk under this statute.
What is intentional interference with economic relations (IIER) in the social media context?
IIER is a tort claim for intentional, improper interference with business relationships or prospective economic advantage. On social media it arises from coordinated tactics designed to cause economic harm — mass false reviews, organized reporting of accounts to trigger removal, contacting an employer or advertiser to pressure severance of a relationship, or sustained harassment campaigns. The plaintiff must show intentional interference, improper means or motive, and resulting economic damage. This claim can exist even where no individual statement rises to the level of defamation.
Does Oregon law protect employees from employer demands to access their social media?
Yes. ORS 659A.330 prohibits Oregon employers from requesting or requiring employee or applicant social media login credentials, compelling access to personal social media accounts, or retaliating against anyone who refuses. The statute applies to all Oregon employers. Violations give rise to civil claims, and the conduct may also implicate computer access statutes if accounts are accessed without authorization.
What FTC rules apply to paid influencer promotions?
The FTC's Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255, revised 2023) require clear and conspicuous disclosure of any material connection between an endorser and a brand. This includes payment, free products, and family or employment relationships. Disclosures must be unavoidable — not buried in hashtags or fine print. Liability can fall on both the influencer and the brand. Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act may independently apply to undisclosed paid promotions that mislead Oregon consumers.
Who is liable when AI generates defamatory or harmful content?
Liability depends on how the content was generated and published. The user who prompted and published the content may face defamation or false light claims. The AI platform operator may face liability if the system was designed in a manner that foreseeably generates harmful outputs, and Section 230 protection for first-party AI-generated content (as opposed to user content) is contested. Right-of-publicity claims arise when AI generates likenesses without consent. The FTC has specifically addressed AI-generated impersonation as an unfair trade practice.
What privacy claims arise from doxxing or unauthorized sharing of private messages?
Oregon recognizes privacy torts covering this conduct. Public disclosure of private facts covers the publication of private information the plaintiff reasonably expected to remain private, where disclosure is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Intrusion upon seclusion covers unauthorized access to private accounts or interception of communications. False light covers publications that place someone in a misleading and highly offensive context even without technically false statements. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides a federal parallel for unauthorized account access.
Can I get legal help in Oregon for cancel culture or coordinated harassment?
Yes. Coordinated online campaigns can give rise to claims for defamation, IIER, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy depending on the specific conduct. Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute cuts both ways: it protects legitimate public criticism but does not immunize targeted harassment, false factual statements, or economic interference campaigns. An attorney can help assess which claims are viable and whether the anti-SLAPP risk is manageable given the specific facts.
David Newman Brunk handles online disputes in Oregon, including platform litigation, defamation, IIER, privacy claims, and AI liability matters.