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.

Policy

We’ll be here again: How tech companies fail to prevent terrorism

Social media platforms are playing defense to stop mass shootings. Without cooperation and legislation, it’s not working.

The Buffalo attack showed that tech’s best defenses against online hate aren’t sophisticated enough to fight the algorithms designed by those same companies to promote content.

Photo: Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Tech platforms' patchwork approach to content moderation has made them a hotbed for hate speech that can turn deadly, as it did this weekend in Buffalo. The alleged shooter that killed 10 in a historically Black neighborhood used Discord to plan his rampage for months and livestreamed it on Twitch.

The move mirrors what happened in Christchurch, New Zealand, when a white supremacist murdered 51 people in a mosque in 2019. He viewed the killings as a meme. To disseminate that meme, he turned to the same place more than 1 billion other users do: Facebook. This pattern is destined to repeat itself as long as tech companies continue to play defense instead of offense against online hate and fail to work together.

Keep Reading Show less
Sarah Roach

Sarah Roach is a news writer at Protocol (@sarahroach_) and contributes to Source Code. She is a recent graduate of George Washington University, where she studied journalism and mass communication and criminal justice. She previously worked for two years as editor in chief of her school's independent newspaper, The GW Hatchet.

Sponsored Content

Foursquare data story: leveraging location data for site selection

We take a closer look at points of interest and foot traffic patterns to demonstrate how location data can be leveraged to inform better site selecti­on strategies.

Imagine: You’re the leader of a real estate team at a restaurant brand looking to open a new location in Manhattan. You have two options you’re evaluating: one site in SoHo, and another site in the Flatiron neighborhood. Which do you choose?

Keep Reading Show less
Enterprise

SAP’s leadership vacuum on display with Hasso Plattner’s last stand

Conflict of interest questions, blowback to the Ukraine response and a sinking stock price hang in the backdrop of Plattner’s last election to the SAP supervisory board.

Plattner will run for a final two-year transition term atop SAP’s supervisory board.

Photo: Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images

Just one man has been with SAP over its entire 50-year history: co-founder Hasso Plattner. Now, the 78-year-old software visionary is making his last stand.

On Wednesday, Plattner will run for a final two-year transition term atop SAP’s supervisory board, an entity mandated by law in Germany that basically oversees the executive team. Leaders at SAP, for example, report to the supervisory board, not the CEO.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Enterprise

Why Google Cloud is providing security for AWS and Azure users too

“To just focus on Google Cloud, we wouldn't be serving our customers,” Google Cloud security chief Phil Venables told Protocol.

Google Cloud announced the newest addition to its menu of security offerings.

Photo: G/Unsplash

In August, Google Cloud pledged to invest $10 billion over five years in cybersecurity — a target that looks like it will be easily achieved, thanks to the $5.4 billion deal to acquire Mandiant and reported $500 million acquisition of Siemplify in the first few months of 2022 alone.

But the moves raise questions about Google Cloud’s main goal for its security operation. Does Google want to offer the most secure cloud platform in order to inspire more businesses to run on it — or build a major enterprise cybersecurity products and services business, in whatever environment it’s chosen?

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@procotol.com.

Workplace

The tools that make you pay for not getting stuff done

Some tools let you put your money on the line for productivity. Should you bite?

Commitment contracts are popular in a niche corner of the internet, and the tools have built up loyal followings of people who find the extra motivation effective.

Photoillustration: Anna Shvets/Pexels; Protocol

Danny Reeves, CEO and co-founder of Beeminder, is used to defending his product.

“When people first hear about it, they’re kind of appalled,” Reeves said. “Making money off of people’s failure is how they view it.”

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins