§ 125.0025.Suit to Declare Certain Common Nuisances

The online counterpart to the abatement suit, and its remedy is deliberately slight.

A suit to declare that a person operating a web address or computer network is maintaining a common nuisance may be brought by an individual, by the attorney general, or by a district, county, or city attorney — the same plaintiffs as the ordinary suit.

What follows is entirely different. On a finding that a web address or computer network is a common nuisance, the sole remedy available is a judicial finding issued to the attorney general, apart from attorney’s fees.

No injunction, no closure, no contempt. The court declares, and the declaration goes to one office.

The restraint is deliberate, and its reason is federal law. Ordering a site closed or an intermediary to block it runs into the immunity that 47 U.S.C. Section 230 gives interactive computer services — which is also why the nuisance provision exempts providers, search engines, hosts and device makers.

What the attorney general may then do is limited to two options.

Notify internet service providers, search engine operators, browsing or hosting companies, or device manufacturers of the finding to determine if they are able to offer technical assistance — expressly in a manner consistent with 47 U.S.C. Section 230.

Read that carefully: it asks whether they are able to help. It compels nothing, and the qualifying clause keeps the request inside the federal immunity.

Or post the judicial finding on the attorney general’s website.

Publication is the practical remedy here. A court finding that a site is a common nuisance, published by the state, reaches advertisers, payment processors and the public — pressure the chapter cannot apply directly.