New Jersey Investigates Juicy Campus Gossip Site for Possible Consumer-Fraud Violations

By JEFFREY R. YOUNG

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines Colleges Foot a Large Share of Athletics Expenses A new report from the NCAA breaks out revenue and expenses more clearly than before and shows what many had feared: Most athletics programs are heavily subsidized. Opinion: Stop Hiding the Financial Truth About College Athletics The Lectures Are Recorded, So Why Go to Class? One-Third of West Virginia U.'s Faculty Meets, Reaffirming Calls for President's Ouster AAUP Criticizes U. of New Haven Over Lecturer's Dismissal Education Dept. Easing Off on Preferred-Lender Limits Higher Education Act Nears Completion, but Major Hurdles Remain As Campuses Become More Diverse, Colleges Must Alter Fund-Raising Approaches, Report Says 3 Colleges Will Provide Courses for Forces in Iraq

New Jersey consumer-affairs officials announced on Tuesday that they are investigating whether Juicy Campus, a campus-gossip Web site, violates state laws that protect against consumer fraud.

Juicy Campus has sparked outrage on campuses across the country for publishing hateful or malicious comments about students, posted by anonymous users. Popular topics on the site include lists of "sluttiest girls" and "biggest cocaine users."

Several students who have been maligned have complained that the Web site has refused to remove what they argue are false and harmful statements about them. Some student governments have called on administrators to block the site from campus networks or take other actions against it, but so far nothing has stopped the site (The Chronicle, March 17).

Now, New Jersey is taking the lead in a possible legal approach to forcing the site to become more accountable for the content it provides.

The state's e-commerce investigative unit is exploring whether the site is in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Investigators issued a subpoena to Juicy Campus this week seeking information about how the college affiliation of users is verified, how the site enforces its policy of requiring users under 18 years old to submit a parental release form, and other details about its business practices.

State officials also issued subpoenas to two Web-advertising services, AdBrite Inc. and Google, as part of the investigation. Juicy Campus had used both of the ad networks in the past, but both companies have since severed ties with it, saying that the gossip site violated their terms of service. Investigators want to know how Juicy Campus represented itself to the advertising services.

"Misrepresentation to the public by businesses violates our Consumer Fraud Act," the state attorney general, Anne Milgram, said in a written statement. "JuicyCampus.com must honor the terms and conditions that it informs the public it will adhere to."

A news release issued by the attorney general's office notes that Princeton University is one of the campuses for which Juicy Campus has set up a message board.

But a spokeswoman for Princeton, Emily R. Aronson, said the university did not call for the investigation. "We took no action against the Web site," she said.

Ms. Milgram told the Associated Press that the investigation was sparked after a student complained about a derogatory post on the site that included her name and address.

Tracy Mitrano, director of information-technology policy at Cornell University, described the approach of looking at whether Juicy Campus violated consumer laws as "very creative."

"As usual, when technology shifts the picture of traditional law, it is a bit of a challenge at first to go back to existing law and see if there isn't anything that works" to deal with it, she said.

The founder of Juicy Campus, Matt Ivester, has said in the past that the site is not legally responsible for material posted there. "Juicy Campus is the provider of an interactive computer service," Mr. Ivester wrote on the site's blog last month. As such, he said, "Juicy Campus is immune from liability arising from content posted by users." He cited Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in defense of that argument.

Ms. Mitrano agreed in an interview that that section probably did protect Juicy Campus from liability.

Mr. Ivester could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.