A federal court in California has held, in Opperman, et al., v. Path, Inc., et al., that Apple was not shielded by the Communication Decency Act’s immunity provision for the activities of app developers because its app development guidelines allegedly encouraged those developers to obtain the contact information of app users without their consent or knowledge.  Courts have interpreted Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA as providing immunity to parties that publish third-party information without contributing to the development of the offending information.  The court, however, held that Apple’s guidelines allegedly fostered the creation of apps that stealthily harvested users’ contact information, thereby contributing to the alleged illegality.  This is a rather unusual CDA case, as the “information” at issue was not a statement or image provided by a third party, but a piece of functional software.