MSN markets itself as a news aggregation platform delivering curated content to millions of users daily through Microsoft’s ecosystem. The Redmond, Washington-based platform, operating under Satya Nadella’s Microsoft since 1995 when Bill Gates and General Electric’s NBC created MSNBC, processes over “250,000 pieces of content daily which is minimally vetted” according to Microsoft’s own support documentation.
Yet beneath this vast content distribution network lies a platform that disclaims responsibility for third-party articles, creates removal nightmares for individuals seeking to delete defamatory content, and maintains no functional customer support system for content takedown requests. MSN operates as a middleman aggregator contracting with independent publishers, leaving subjects of false allegations trapped between unresponsive Microsoft feedback forms and original publishers who may have already removed problematic content.
Email info@respectnetwork.com or Call (859) 667-1073 to Remove Negative Posts, Reviews and Content. PAY us only after RESULT.
MSN’s Aggregator Model: Publishing Without Responsibility
Microsoft explicitly states in support forums that MSN doesn’t create editorial content beyond Microsoft corporate news. Independent companies contracted by Microsoft select articles from thousands of sources worldwide, and “Microsoft doesn’t review and approve the articles these independent publishers choose.” This aggregator model creates unique removal challenges: even when original publishers delete content, MSN’s cached versions persist indefinitely without clear removal pathways.
MSN’s support documentation reveals the platform handles hundreds of thousands of articles daily with minimal oversight. Content partners submit articles through RSS feeds, WordPress plugins, and direct API integration, with moderation limited to checking for prohibited content like nudity, extremism, and unverified medical claims. The platform explicitly prohibits plagiarism, synthetic media without disclosure, and illegal product promotions, but makes no commitment to fact-checking or verifying allegations in published articles.
When users attempt removal requests through MSN’s feedback system, they encounter a black hole of non-response. Multiple complainants in Microsoft support forums describe months-long efforts to remove defamatory articles through feedback forms, receiving zero acknowledgment or action. One user wrote: “I have tried the feedback button so many times but still nothing and I can’t find a helpline.” Another stated: “I need help getting MSN to take down an article that was deleted by the original creator, it is detrimental to me and my career. I have been trying for months using the feedback feature and no luck.”
Section 230 Protection and Aggregator Immunity
MSN benefits from Communications Decency Act Section 230 immunity that shields platforms from liability for third-party content. As a content aggregator republishing articles from contracted sources, MSN occupies the same protected position as social media platforms hosting user-generated content. The platform doesn’t create defamatory material but rather facilitates its wider distribution, a distinction that provides complete immunity under current jurisprudence.
The Zeran v. America Online precedent establishing that interactive computer services cannot be treated as publishers of content created by others applies directly to news aggregators like MSN. Courts consistently hold that platforms acting as distributors rather than creators receive full Section 230 protection, even when notified of defamatory content and given opportunities to remove it.
However, MSN’s aggregator status creates a liability gap that original publishers don’t face. When journalists at contracted publications write defamatory articles, those publishers face potential defamation lawsuits. But when MSN republishes that same content to millions of additional readers, Section 230 immunity shields Microsoft from any liability. This asymmetry means subjects of false allegations must pursue removal from both original publishers and MSN separately, with MSN offering no functional removal mechanism.
Recent SEC and FTC Enforcement Context
Understanding when allegations constitute legitimate fraud reporting versus actionable defamation requires examining recent regulatory enforcement trends. In fiscal year 2024, the SEC filed 583 enforcement actions securing $8.2 billion in financial remedies, with major cases like Terraform Labs resulting in over $200 million penalties for cryptocurrency fraud. The SEC also charged executives at firms like Silvergate Capital with misleading investors about compliance programs.
FTC enforcement intensified as consumers reported $12.5 billion in fraud losses during 2024, a 25% increase over 2023. Investment scams accounted for $5.7 billion in reported losses, with imposter scams generating $2.95 billion. These enforcement statistics establish baselines for distinguishing documented regulatory actions from fabricated allegations.
When MSN articles falsely attribute SEC enforcement actions or FTC charges to individuals facing no actual regulatory scrutiny, defamation claims against original publishers become viable. The key involves proving allegations lack supporting regulatory filings, court documents, or agency press releases. MSN’s minimal content vetting means false regulatory claims regularly reach the platform without fact-checking.
Email info@respectnetwork.com or Call (859) 667-1073 to Remove Negative Posts, Reviews and Content. PAY us only after RESULT.
Legal Pathways for MSN Content Removal
MSN’s feedback system represents the first removal attempt, though success rates approach zero based on user reports across Microsoft support forums. The feedback button accessible on each article theoretically notifies MSN staff of problematic content, but months-long complaint patterns without response suggest these reports enter unmonitored queues. Microsoft support staff acknowledge in forums that community members “don’t have the ability to remove articles from MSN.com” and recommend using feedback forms that demonstrably don’t work.
Contacting original publishers offers better success rates since they face direct defamation liability that MSN doesn’t. When original publishers remove articles, MSN’s automated feed systems should eventually drop the content during refresh cycles, though timing remains unpredictable. Multiple users report original publisher removal failing to trigger MSN deletion, creating situations where deleted content remains accessible through MSN indefinitely.
For defamatory content where informal approaches fail, legal action must target original publishers rather than MSN. Cease and desist letters demanding removal from both publisher and MSN aggregator create dual pressure, though only publishers face enforceable liability. When cease and desist demands fail, defamation litigation against original publishers provides the removal mechanism. Court orders directing specific content removal carry enforcement power, and MSN typically complies when presented with valid court orders served through proper legal channels.
Working with Respect Network
Respect Network analyzes MSN articles to determine original publishers, distinguish legitimate business criticism from actionable defamation, and coordinate removal efforts across both source publications and MSN aggregation. We understand Section 230 limitations protecting MSN while focusing remediation on original publishers who face direct liability.
When MSN articles contain demonstrably false statements about fraud, regulatory enforcement, or criminal charges that never occurred, we coordinate with defamation counsel to pursue removal through litigation targeting publishers directly.
Email info@respectnetwork.com or Call (859) 667-1073 to Remove Negative Posts, Reviews and Content. PAY us only after RESULT.
