(Doc. 56 at 2.) Silver goes on to argue that the CDA only covers "interactive service providers," such as AOL or gmail. Silver further contends that Quora is a "publisher" or "distributor" of information and relies on Grace v. eBay Inc., 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004), depublished by Grace v. eBay Inc., 99 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2004), and Cal. Rules of Court 8.1105(e)(1) and 8.1115(a), to argue that Quora is not entitled to CDA immunity in this case. Section 230 of the CDA defines an interactive computer service ("ICS") as "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
eBAY INCORPORATED.No. S127338.Supreme Court of CaliforniaOct. 13, 2004 Prior report: Cal.App., 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 192. Respondent's petition for review GRANTED.
As a result it may not be cited to this court and we will not consider it. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Adams, 187 Ariz. 585, 593, 931 P.2d 1095, 1103 (App. 1996). Austin also relies on Grace v. eBay, Inc., 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 192 (App. 2004), but it too has been depublished. ¶ 15 The Fourth Circuit's approach has been followed in two other circuits.