Subway v. Quiznos [1]

In late 2006, restaurant franchisor Quiznos and video-sharing site iFilm co-sponsored a nationwide contest, “Quiznos v. Subway TV Ad Challenge,” inviting members of the public to submit videos comparing a Quiznos sandwich to a Subway sandwich using the theme "meat, no meat." Contestants submitted their videos to www.meatnomeat.com, and iFilm published entries on its website, where they remained following the end of the contest and selection of the winner.

Quiznos moved to dismiss this count of the complaint based on the immunity for publication of user-generated content found in the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c) [2], "CDA 230"). The court denied the motion, holding that CDA 230 provides defendants an affirmative defense, which can be raised on a motion for summary judgment, but not on a motion to dismiss. Doctor's Assocs. Inc. v. QIP Holders [3], LLP, No. 06-cv-1710, slip op. at 4-5 (D. Conn. Apr. 19, 2007).

This case is significant in that it departs from the majority of cases holding that CDA 230 provides a valid ground for granting a motion to dismiss. Another interesting issue that is sure to arise is whether a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act fits within CDA 230 immunity. By its terms, CDA 230 does not apply to "any law pertaining to intellectual property." 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2) [2]. False advertsing law is not usually thought of as an aspect of intellectual property law, but the federal false advertising provision is found in the Lanham Act, side-by-side with federal trademark laws.

Update:

2/4/2008 - Subway filed a seventh amended complaint [4].   

2/19/2010 - The court denied [5] Quiznos' motion for summary judgment.  The case subsequently settled.