cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3). See Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir.2006) (recognizing that “[t]he majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service”) (punctuation omitted). In keeping with the Act’s plain language, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the CDA “expressly bars ‘any actions’ ” under Florida law that conflict with it. See Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So.2d 1010, 1018 (Fla.2001). See also Giordano v. Romeo, 76 So.3d 1100, 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Dowbenko’s defamation claim is preempted
holding that operator of website that hosted defamatory statements enjoys complete immunity under the cda from any action brought against it as a result of the postings of third party users of its website recognizing that a forum selection clause also applies to a nonsignatory third party where the third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract holding that a cause of action for defamation accrues on the date the defamatory material is published to a third party holding that discovery requests directed at nonimmune party did not infringe on the sovereign immunity of a third party even if the third party retained a colorable claim of immunity holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party