International Law

Having blogged about Juicy Campus several times over the past few weeks (see here, here and here), I thought it was worth noting that it has been subpoenaed by the New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram as part of an investigation into derogatory comments on the site.  From Information Week:

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram has subpoenaed a college gossip Web site as part of an investigation into derogatory comments on the site.

...

"Misrepresentation to the public by businesses violates our Consumer Fraud Act," Milgram said while announcing the investigation. "JuicyCampus.com must honor the terms and conditions that it informs the public it will adhere to."

Prosecutors and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs want to determine whether Web site owner Lime Blue of Reno, Nev., violates the Consumer Fraud Act through "unconscionable commercial practices and misrepresentations to users."

"The site's 'User Conduct Terms' require posters to agree that they will not post content that is abusive, obscene, or invasive of another's privacy," Milgram said in a statement. "JuicyCampus.com tells the public that this offensive content may be removed, but the site apparently lacks tools to report or dispute this material."

The subpoena requests an explanation of how JuicyCampus selects "supported campuses" featured on its site, how users' school affiliation is verified, and how it enforces the use of parental consent forms for users under 18.

A second subpoena requests information about the business relationship between the Web site and AdBrite, a San Francisco online advertising company that advertises on the site. Specifically, investigators want to know how JuicyCampus represents itself, as well as the types of ads and advertising keywords it requests.

Read more here.  Eugene Volokh is understandably a little confused and concerned by this development:

Can anyone tell me, please, just what JuicyCampus has been saying that is supposedly a misrepresentation?

I agree that speakers and service providers are bound by their contracts, including contracts not to say or host certain things. They may also in some situations be bound by explicit promises they make in their advertising. But it would obviously be dangerous to have them be liable for broadly "suggesting" certain things. Imagine a state Attorney General prosecuting the New York Times for "suggesting that it" is fair and accurate, and investigating whether they've defrauded consumers because of supposed bias and error. (No, seriously, that sort of prosecution would be bad.)

Likewise, imagine an attorney general going after us for "suggesting" with our comment policy that we'd delete offensive comments, but then not doing a good enough job of deleting them. Of course, we don't say we'll delete offensive comments (we try to discourage such comments, and we may delete them, but we never say we will), but who knows what someone might think we suggest? So can anyone report on what exactly JuicyCampus said that might have been false or misleading?

Read more here.