Protocol | Policy

Tech’s favorite legal shield could be closer to the Supreme Court

Appeals courts have diverged over how to think product liability under Section 230, and the high court may have to step in.

The façade of the U.S. Supreme Court building.

The Supreme Court may soon take up Section 230, if the political opposition to tech's prized legal shield doesn't alter it first.

Image: Joe Ravi

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday that Snap can't use Section 230 to get out of a lawsuit by parents who said the app's "Speed Filter" pushed their sons into a fatal car crash in 2017.

That decision, which some scholars of the provision say is at odds with appeals court rulings elsewhere in the U.S., could nudge the Supreme Court toward taking up a case on the law.

"The chances of the Supreme Court interpreting Section 230 for the first time ever increased substantially today," Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who wrote a history of the provision, tweeted.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act immunizes tech platforms from lawsuits over user posts and other third-party content, which the platforms say is necessary to protect free speech and give them free rein to take down the worst content without fear of lawsuits. Opponents, including many lawmakers, say it removes too much incentive for online companies to actually stop harm on their platforms.

The parents in the case said Snap's filter, which allowed users to display their speed, wasn't third-party content and Section 230 doesn't apply. Snap urged dismissal by arguing that the filters exist for users to incorporate into their messages, meaning the suit was essentially holding them responsible for user content, including one of the snaps, despite what Section 230 prohibits. The court agreed with the parents, saying that the filter was essentially a design choice Snap itself had made, allowing a trial to proceed.

The decision echoed some prior cases in that court, but it appeared to be in tension with other decisions elsewhere in the U.S., including a 2019 ruling by a New York appeals court. The judge there cited Section 230 to uphold the dismissal of a case against gay dating app Grindr by a man who claimed defective design and other issues when his ex-boyfriend impersonated him.

"Gorgeous Section 230 decision," the plaintiff's lawyer in that case, Carrie Goldberg, tweeted about the Snap ruling on Tuesday. She said she was glad the court ruled that product design is different from making a platform responsible for third-party content after the New York court in her case "got it so wrong."

The differences in the rulings could ultimately result from different facts, but when appeals courts diverge in what's known as a "circuit split," it tends to raise the probability that the Supreme Court will step in to resolve the varying interpretations of similar issues.

"I think this is widening the divide," Kosseff told Protocol in a follow-up interview, though he noted "a lot of procedural reasons" why this case might not go to the Supreme Court.

If the high court does take up the issue, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been taking swipes at internet platforms in his statements, already made clear last year he thinks that judges have interpreted the law far too broadly. In a statement citing both the Snap and Grindr cases, he suggested if platforms know about misdeeds, Section 230 might not apply — an interpretation that could upend much of how platforms do content moderation if it became the basis of a ruling.

"The question is whether a critical mass of his colleagues share that view," Kosseff said.

Increasingly, Section 230 is also under political attack. Congress views it as a handout to a powerful industry, and a lever to get them to change their behavior. Lawmakers have blamed it, with varying degrees of sophistication, for providing insufficient reason to take down vile and illegal content including stalking or drug sales and for enabling alleged bias against conservatives. New bills to change the provision pop up constantly.

"I think Supreme Court review of 230 is going to happen — if 230 is not repealed," Kosseff said.

Protocol | Fintech

How European fintech startup N26 is preparing for U.S. regulations

"There's a lot more scrutiny being placed on fintech. We are definitely mindful of it."

In an interview with Protocol, Stephanie Balint, N26's U.S. general manager, discussed the company's approach to regulations in the U.S.

Photo: N26

N26's monster $900 million funding round announced Monday underlined the German startup's momentum in the digital banking market.

Stephanie Balint, N26's U.S. general manager, said the funding will be used for expansion and also to improve "our core offering to make this the most reliable bank that our customers can trust," she told Protocol.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

The way we work has fundamentally changed. COVID-19 upended business dealings and office work processes, putting into hyperdrive a move towards digital collaboration platforms that allow teams to streamline processes and communicate from anywhere. According to the International Data Corporation, the revenue for worldwide collaboration applications increased 32.9 percent from 2019 to 2020, reaching $22.6 billion; it's expected to become a $50.7 billion industry by 2025.

"While consumers and early adopter businesses had widely embraced collaborative applications prior to the pandemic, the market saw five years' worth of new users in the first six months of 2020," said Wayne Kurtzman, research director of social and collaboration at IDC. "This has cemented collaboration, at least to some extent, for every business, large and small."

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Silver

Kate Silver is an award-winning reporter and editor with 15-plus years of journalism experience. Based in Chicago, she specializes in feature and business reporting. Kate's reporting has appeared in the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic's CityLab, Atlas Obscura, The Telegraph and many other outlets.

Apple’s new MacBooks are the future — and the past

After years of reinventing the wheel, Apple's back to just building really good ones.

Apple brought back the ports.

Photo: Apple

The 2015 Pro was, by most accounts, one of the best laptops Apple ever made. It was fast and functional, and it had a great screen, a MagSafe charger, plenty of ports, a great keyboard and solid battery life. If you walked around practically any office in Silicon Valley, you'd see Pros everywhere.

Many of those users have been holding on to their increasingly old and dusty 2015 Pros, too, because right about when that computer came out was when Apple seemed to lose its way in the laptop market. It released the 12-inch MacBook, an incredibly thin and light computer that made a bunch of changes — a new keyboard and trackpad design chief among them — that eventually made their way around the rest of the MacBook lineup. Then came the Touch Bar, Apple's attempt to build an entirely new user interface into a laptop.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Image: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Imagine a company where there are no meetings — just time for deep, focused work punctuated by short conversations on Slack and project updates on Trello.

Now imagine a company where the no-meeting ethos is so ingrained that it's possible to work there for 10 years without ever speaking face-to-face with a single coworker, and for your boss to not even recognize the sound of your voice.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Workplace

#AppleToo activist says Apple fired her for deleting apps from her devices

Janneke Parrish says she was dismissed after deleting Robinhood, Pokemon Go and Google Drive from her work devices during an investigation inside the company.

The Apple Too movement is trying to organize Apple workers into a collective movement.
Photo: Bloomberg via Getty

Unlike most other companies, Apple asks that its employees use their work phones like personal ones — and for five years, Apple program manager Janneke Parrish did as she was told. But last week, when Apple asked Parrish for her devices in an internal investigation, she was afraid Apple would see her personal and private information. She disobeyed orders and deleted apps like Robinhood, Pokemon Go and Google Drive. Then Apple fired her.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Latest Stories