Subway And Quiznos Settle Dispute Over User-Generated Ads; Liability Questions Remain For Next Lawsuit

from the truth-in-advertising dept

Back in 2008, we wrote about a lawsuit between rival sandwich shop chains Subway and Quiznos over a viral ad campaign. Quiznos had set up a contest to get fans to create and upload commercials for its stores, and Subway claimed that many of the ads made false claims about Subway. To Subway, this made Quiznos guilty of false advertising. Quiznos used Section 230 to claim that it wasn’t responsible for the content of the ads, since it hadn’t actually created them. However, with Subway saying that Quiznos was actively involved in some aspects of the ad creation, the judge wouldn’t grant a summary judgment on Section 230, and wanted the case brought to a jury to consider. Not surprisingly, at this point, Quiznos folded faster than one of its toasted sandwiches, and the two sides settled the case.

While you can understand why this happened, it still leaves us without a ruling — meaning that there will likely be more lawsuits of this nature coming down the road. With so many “user-generated content” contests out there, the question of liability for the content could become a pretty big issue… and I’d guess that most companies trying out these contests haven’t given it much thought at all.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: quiznos, subway

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Subway And Quiznos Settle Dispute Over User-Generated Ads; Liability Questions Remain For Next Lawsuit”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
8 Comments
Derek Kerton (profile) says:

But isn’t Sec 230 inappropriate here? Isn’t Quizno’s actively curating, selecting, and editing the content?

I mean, if I wanted to upload a video of my cat playing piano, would they put that video up? If I uploaded a video of me eating at Quizno’s but then saying ‘Subway is cleaner and better’ would they leave that video up? If so, then Sec 230 may apply, as they would be a neutral host of any content.

But if they actively direct what type of content they are seeking, or they actively select what to post, or they actively take down videos counter to their sought-after narrative, well then, they are directly involved in the production of the content on the site. I see that as very different than YouTube in Italy.

I love Section 230, and I think it essential to the Internet, modern many-to-many communications, and our freedom of speech on the Interwebs. That’s why I don’t want to see it abused in situations where it doesn’t apply. I would hate to see Quizno’s lose a case, and have it count as a “precedent against Sec 230”.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...