CDA 230 does not cover liability from copyright infringement which is what the underlying Moldovan court judgment is about. The relevant law is DMCA 512 (17 USC

CDA 230 does not cover liability from copyright infringement which is what the underlying Moldovan court judgment is about. The relevant law is DMCA 512 (17 USC 512) which specifically requires those who want to disclaim liability to comply with properly-formatted takedown requests. DMCA 512 is annoying at best, censorious at worst. I have a personal disdain for it and other copyright laws. But it's clear Cloudflare has a legal obligation to remove infringing content. Furthermore, the questions you raise about jurisdiction are already covered by a bevy of international trade treaties. Notably, Moldova is a party to the Berne Convention as well as the US, so the judgments are entirely compatible. Yes, being on the Internet subjects you to hundreds of countries' laws at once[0], and the only reason why we have an Internet is because we have lots of treaties governing what judgments made where can be ported to which countries' jurisdictions. Suffice it to say, any argument based solely on "you have no jurisdiction because I've never heard of you before and can't point to your country on a map" is not getting far in a court of law. [0] If you think this is crazy, let me introduce you to the "linguistic jurisdiction argument", in which courts argue jurisdiction from the fact that you spoke that country's official language.