Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.
court case involving internet service providers and user content
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009), is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) rules that Yahoo!, Inc., as an Internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party. Plaintiff Cecilia Barnes made claims arising out of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.'s alleged failure to honor promises to remove offensive content about the plaintiff posted by a third party. The content consisted of a personal profile with nude photos of the Plaintiff and her contact information. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon had dismissed Barnes' complaint.
History
In 2004, Cecilia Barnes ended a relationship with her boyfriend. Following the breakup, her now ex-boyfriend tried to harass her by creating multiple unauthorized Yahoo! profiles about her that included solicitation to engage in sexual intercourse. These profiles seemed like they came from Barnes herself and contained nude photographs of her that were taken without her knowledge as well as her real contact information.
“Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.” enters the record as court case involving internet service providers and user content. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Barnes, Yahoo and court can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Barnes, Yahoo and court provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4861562. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1096, 2009 and 2004.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. primary sources, Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. archive and Barnes research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.