Chicago Lawyers' Committee v. craigslist, Inc., is a case involving discriminatory on-line advertising that CLC recently filed against craigslist, Inc., the company behind the website of the same name. The lawsuit alleges that since July 2005, craigslist, Inc. has published and continues to publish housing ads from the metropolitan Chicago area that are discriminatory on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, color and familial status in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.
Latest News (updated 2/15/08)
On January 11, 2007 CLC appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 9, 2007 the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed its opening appellate brief.
Oral arguments were on February 15th, 2008, and you can listen to them online here.
Documents relating to Chicago Lawyers' Committee v. craigslist:
Read HUD's memo Re: Fair Housing Application to Internet Advertising (75 KB)
Read the federal complaint (80 KB)
Read our response (7675 KB)
Read the National Fair Housing Alliance amicus brief (926 KB)
Read our surreply (3901 KB)
Read Judge St. Eve's opinion (97 KB)
Read our motion to reconsider (20 KB)
Read our Reply Memo Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (508 KB)
Read our opening appellate brief (228 KB)
Read the National Fair Housing Alliance and national Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights appellate amicus brief (270 KB)
Read our reply brief (*NEW* - 1/9/08) (59 KB)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are these ads harmful?
Discriminatory ads stigmatize and discourage people in protected groups from seeking housing and from filing discrimination complaints. These ads also mislead readers into thinking that it is normal and acceptable to base housing decisions on such protected statuses as race, gender, national origin, religion, and family status (when in fact it is against the law to base housing decisions on any of these factors). In addition, when there are many discriminatory ads in certain neighborhoods, these ads can effectively remove entire neighborhoods from a home-seeker’s consideration. Publication of these ads on the internet amplifies the harm many times over, as it allows millions of people to see each discriminatory ad.
Doesn’t the Communications Decency Act immunize electronic publishers from liability for content written by someone else?
Our position is that the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”) does not immunize electronic publishers from Fair Housing Act claims. As evidenced by the title of the CDA, "protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material," Congress intended to encourage websites and electronic media to screen and block offensive material. A blanket immunity for a website that does no screening would actually discourage websites from screening and blocking, since screening will result in fewer customers.
Moreover, a blanket immunity for electronic publishers that publish discriminatory ads would roll back enforcement of every hard-fought federal civil rights protection, from the right to equal opportunity in housing, to the right to equal opportunity in employment, to the right to equal opportunity in public accommodations. craigslist has published hundreds of openly discriminatory ads, while at the same time masking the identity of the entities who discriminate. For example, our review of the craigslist website found advertisements calling for men only, for positions for which gender is not a legitimate job requirement; advertisements calling for single people only for housing that, by law, must welcome children, and ads calling for whites only, for housing for which it is illegal to specify race.
At the same time, classified ads have largely moved from a medium that has accepted responsibility for screening out overtly discriminatory ads (print) to a medium (electronic), which (in the case of craigslist) refuses to accept any responsibility for screening out discriminatory ads. Again, because craigslist is happy to mask the identities of those who discriminate, victims of discrimination are left with no way to enforce their rights and no remedy.
Some of the ads seem innocent.
The ads mentioned in the lawsuit range from the universally shocking-- like “no minorities,” and “African Americans clash with me”--to unequivocally illegal but less shocking ads like “no kids”-- to ads that may seem innocuous, like “kosher deli around corner.” Even the ads that seem innocuous convey the message that certain tenants will be preferred over others. We have learned as a fair housing organization that even subtle ads discourage people from applying for housing, as people do not want to live where they perceive that are not wanted.
Congress, when it wrote the Fair Housing Act, recognized the harm of even seemingly innocuous ads, and wrote the prohibition on discriminatory ads very broadly. Ads that indicate a preference or limitation based on any of the protected categories are illegal. The courts have held that, if an ordinary reader of a protected class would be discouraged from applying, the ad is illegal.
Can craigslist afford to screen for discriminatory ads? Won’t it fundamentally change the internet if electronic defendants have to screen ads for content?
Craigslist likely already does this sort of screening in order to screen out ads that offer illegal substances for sale. We are simply asking craigslist to also screen their housing ads.
We believe that screening housing ads for discriminatory content can be done with minimal cost and disruption. Current HUD guidelines specify a list of words that indicate federally protected classes (e.g., race, national origin, gender, religion, family status), use of which would likely violate the Fair Housing Act. Because there are clear guidelines as to what words or phrases violate the Fair Housing Act, we believe that electronic defendants can use existing filtering technology to screen housing listings, with very little need for subsequent review by Craigslist staff.
Isn’t craigslist a common carrier, like the phone company?
Unlike a telephone company, craigslist does more than just provide the technology to access the internet. Craigslist creates a centralized marketplace in which housing providers and consumers can read and post housing ads. Craigslist specifically targets these services towards housing, as does the classified section of a print newspaper. Also unlike the telephone company, craigslist decides which transactions a user can enter into on its site. According to the craigslist website, craigslist moderators also make editorial judgments as to which ads should remain flagged down.
But what about the first amendment and freedom of speech?
The history of civil rights in this country can be cast as a conflict between one person’s freedom to do or say what he pleases and other persons’ interest in equality and fairness. As a country we have decided that, where certain historically excluded classes are concerned (race, gender, national origin, religion, disability, family status), freedom must yield to equality.
Discriminatory housing ads are commercial speech. The courts have said that commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection only if the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. Discriminatory advertisements do not concern lawful activity; these ads facilitate the unlawful denial of housing based on race, national origin, religion, gender, and family status. Housing discrimination is illegal under federal law, state law, and local laws.
Discriminatory ads are misleading because they mistakenly inform readers that it is lawful to deny housing because of race, gender, religion, national origin, and family status, but the law requires that housing be available to all people without regard to their status.
Moreover, for over 30 years print media have screened their classified ads for discriminatory content. Just because craigslist publishes these ads on a computer screen rather than on paper does not mean that it should be treated differently. Indeed, if the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on discriminatory ads is to have any teeth, it must apply to electronic publishers, as housing ads are going on-line.
Isn't Craigslist a community-based website that performs a free service?
Craigslist is a for-profit business and is a profitable business. Fortune magazine recently reported that the privately held craigslist had revenues in 2005 of $20 million. E-Bay currently owns a 25% stake in the company. According to Investor’s Business Daily, craigslist is the most popular Internet classified site in the country, with more than 87 million unique visitors a month. While some of the services that they offer are free, this should not exempt them from following the law.
Aren’t many of the ads cited in your lawsuit ads for shared housing? Aren’t these housing providers exempt from the Fair Housing Act?
Very few of the ads mentioned in the lawsuit are for shared housing. In any event, the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits all housing providers–even those who are looking for a roommate–from making discriminatory statements.
Why didn’t you flag the discriminatory ads?
The Fair Housing Act does not require the public to police ads and nicely ask violators to fix or delete their discriminatory ads. Also, many home seekers respond very quickly to internet housing ads, and a housing opportunity may pass before the public has a chance to flag a discriminatory ad.
The most effective and efficient way to clear the marketplace of these discriminatory ads is for publishers to accept their responsibility to screen for discriminatory ads and to effectively communicate to their users that they cannot post these discriminatory ads.
Are you going after the people who posted the ads?
Yes. In addition to filing against craigslist, we have filed and will continue to file complaints against housing providers and sellers who use craigslist to post discriminatory housing ads. Unfortunately, because of the nature of craigslist, many individuals who post discriminatory ads are anonymous, further frustrating our ability to promote fair and open housing.
Craigslist allows users to flag objectionable ads–why is not that sufficient?
We found over 200 ads since July 2005, while the craigslist flagging system was in place. These ads include very overtly discriminatory ads, such as “no minorities,” “ladies only,” “christians only” and “no kids.” The flagging system does not work.
Craigslist does not remove discriminatory ads until multiple users have flagged it down–which never happens with respect to many discriminatory ads. We have also found that, when one discriminatory ad is flagged down, another often pops up to take its place. Moreover, when an ad is flagged down, craigslist tells the housing provider to feel free to re-post. In any event, craigslist cannot shift its responsibility to publish only nondiscriminatory ads to its users.
Why should craigslist be held liable when all they do is publish ads written by others?
The Fair Housing Act explicitly imposes liability on publishers of discriminatory ads created by third parties. Congress took this step in recognition that it is the publication of these notices which magnifies their harmful effect. Keep in mind that print newspapers have been held accountable for publication of discriminatory ads for many years–if internet publishers are not also held accountable, housing providers who wish to discriminate will simply shift their business to the internet.
Why are you the plaintiff?
A 2002 HUD survey showed that 83% of people who believed they had been discriminated against did not file any complaint, for the simple reason that people do not want to live where they are not wanted. Congress understood this, and gave fair housing organizations standing to bring fair housing complaints on behalf of the communities they serve. Here, the fact that the craigslist website contains so many discriminatory ads itself suggests to craigslist users that it is lawful to post these ads, which further discourages any user from complaining.
So now that the judge has dismissed the case, what happens next?
It has always been clear that this case will be ultimately decided in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already expressed skepticism about the unlimited immunity advocated by craigslist. CLCCRUL will apppeal.
More Information:
For information about the application of the Fair Housing Act to the Internet, 
please read this article (294 KB) originally published in the Stanford Law Review (55 Stan. L. Rev. 969).