The plaintiff in this case sued two web service providers for hosting third-party sites that displayed images stolen from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a subscription website that generated its own content, claimed that CDA § 230 should not protect the defendants because the images fell within the state-law definition of intellectual property. Although the court agreed the CDA does not provide "immunity from 'law[s] pertaining to intellectual property,'" it held that intellectual property must be defined according to federal law. Permitting state IP law to dictate the scope of protection under the CDA "would be contrary to Congress's expressed goal of insulating the development of the Internet from the various state-law regimes."