She then entered her cell phone number on the allegedly fraudulent sites to download ringtones, an action for which she was unknowingly charged.

[1] Google asserted that each of Goddard's claims was barred by the CDA, which prevents a website from being treated as the "publisher or speaker" of third-party content.

The court rejected Goddard's "artful" pleading and dismissed her complaint with leave to amend in a decision issued on December 17, 2008.

"[2] The court rejected Goddard's argument that the Keyword Tool materially contributes to the alleged illegality and thereby establishes developer liability.

[2] The court referred to the Ninth Circuit ruling in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC[4] where CDA immunity was denied because the website forced subscribers to disclose protected characteristics and discriminatory preferences as "a condition of using its services."

The court found that claims alleging that a website negligently undertook to remove harmful content are barred by the CDA.

Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel reasoned that "a plaintiff may not establish developer liability merely by alleging that the operator of a website should have known that the availability of certain tools might facilitate the posting of improper content.”[7] The court held that Goddard's claims treat Google as the publisher or speaker of third-party content, but she failed to substantiate the "labels and conclusions" by which she attempted to escape the scope of the CDA.

[2] Further, the court emphasized that the CDA "must be interpreted to protect websites not merely from ultimate liability, but from having to fight costly and protracted legal battles.