security software and download and use Zango, there is no question that Kaspersky has “made available” for its users the technical means to restrict access to items that Kaspersky has defined as malware. Therefore, Kaspersky satisfies the requirements of subsection (B) so long as the blocked items are objectionable material under § 230(c)(2)(A). Zango has waived any argument on appeal that Kaspersky does not consider Zango’s software to be “otherwise objectionable,” which is one of the specified statutory categories. See § 230(c)(2)(A), (B). Zango also suggests that § 230 was not meant to immunize business torts of the sort it presses. However, we have interpreted § 230 immunity to cover business torts. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1108, 1118-19 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In any event, what § 230(c)(2)(B) does mean
holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions holding that cda  230 provided immunity from state unfair competition and false advertising actions holding that while under a false association claim parties need not be direct competitors under a false advertising claim they do holding in a false advertising case under the lanham act that a proposed disclaimer would not suffice to cure the misleadingness of an advertising claim holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading