Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from being treated as the publisher of what their users say, but its own text, 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(2), lifts that shield for "any law pertaining to intellectual property." This article maps the two-track world the exception creates: copyright claims run through the DMCA's Section 512 notice-and-takedown safe harbor, while trademark and other IP claims are fought on the merits under common-law doctrines like contributory infringement. It brings the doctrine current through the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, which replaced the fifty-year-old "knowledge plus material contribution" test with an intent-and-tailoring standard, alongside Moody v. NetChoice, Gonzalez, Taamneh, Anderson v. TikTok, and the three-way circuit split over whether the carve-out reaches state law. It explains why reform aimed entirely at non-IP harms would still reshape infringement enforcement through the shared machinery of content moderation, and why the burden falls hardest on small platforms and remix creators. A comparison with the EU's Digital Services Act and a running hypothetical tie the doctrine to the concrete decisions platforms, rights holders, and creators actually face.