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.

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. 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.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins