Section 230 – Page 2 – Social Media Legality

States are ready to challenge Section 230

On January 8, 2021, Twitter permanently suspended @realDonaldTrump. The decision followed an initial warning to the then-president and conformed to its published standards as defined in its public interest framework. The day before, Meta (then Facebook) restricted President Trump’s ability to post content on Facebook or Instagram. Both companies cited President Trump’s posts praising those who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 in support of their decisions.

Members of the Texas and Florida legislatures, together with their governors, were seemingly enraged that these sites would silence President Trump’s voice. In response, each immediately passed laws aiming to limit the scope of social media sites. Although substantively different, the Texas and Florida laws are theoretically the same; they both seek to punish social media sites that regulate forms of conservative content that they argue liberal social media sites silence, regardless of whether the posted content violates the site’s published standards.

Shortly after each law’s adoption, two tech advocacy groups, NetChoice and Computer and Communication Industry Association, filed suits in federal district courts challenging the laws as violative of the First Amendment. Each case has made its way through the federal courts on procedural grounds; the Eleventh Circuit upheld a lower court preliminary injunction prohibiting Florida from enforcing the statute until the case is decided on its merits. In contrast, the Fifth Circuit overruled a lower court preliminary injunction. Texas appealed the Fifth Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, by a vote of 5-4, voted to reinstate the injunction. The Supreme Court’s decision made clear that these cases are headed to the Supreme Court on the merits.

Can Social Media Be Regulated?

In 1996 Congress passed what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provides immunity to website publishers for third-party content posted on their websites. The CDA holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This Act passed in 1996, was created in a different time and era, one that could hardly envision how fast the internet would grow in the coming years. In 1996, social media for instance consisted of a little-known social media website called Bolt, the idea of a global world wide web, was still very much in its infancy. The internet was still largely based on dial-up technology, and the government was looking to expand the reach of the internet. This Act is what laid the foundation for the explosion of Social Media, E-commerce, and a society that has grown tethered to the internet.

The advent of Smart-Phones in the late 2000s, coupled with the CDA, set the stage for a society that is constantly tethered to the internet and has allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon to carve out niches within our now globally integrated society. Facebook alone in the 2nd quarter of 2021 has averaged over 1.9 billion daily users.

Recent studs conducted by the Pew Research Center show that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital services”

While older members of society still rely on news media online, the younger generation, namely those 18-29 years of age, receive their news via social media.

The role Social Media plays in the lives of the younger generation needs to be recognized. Social Media has grown at a far greater rate than anyone could imagine. Currently, Social Media operates under its modus operandi, completely free of government interference due to its classification as a private entity, and its protection under Section 230.

Throughout the 20th century when Television News Media dominated the scenes, laws were put into effect to ensure that television and radio broadcasters would be monitored by both the courts and government regulatory commissions. For example, “[t]o maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election.”

What these laws and regulations were put in place for was to ensure that the public interest in broadcasting was protected. To give substance to the public interest standard, Congress has from time to time enacted requirements for what constitutes the public interest in broadcasting. But Congress also gave the FCC broad discretion to formulate and revise the meaning of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as circumstances changed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority is constrained by the first amendment but acts as an intermediary that can intervene to correct perceived inadequacies in overall industry performance, but it cannot trample on the broad editorial discretion of licensees. The Supreme Court has continuously upheld the public trustee model of broadcast regulation as constitutional. The criticisms of regulating social media center on the notion that they are purely private entities that do not fall under the purviews of the government, and yet these same issues are what presented themselves in the precedent-setting case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969. In this case, the court held that “rights of the listeners to information should prevail over those of the broadcasters.” The Court’s holding centered on the public right to information over the rights of a broadcast company to choose what it will share, this is exactly what is at issue today when we look at companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat censuring political figures who post views that they feel may be inciteful of anger or violence.

In essence, what these organizations are doing is keeping information and views from the attention of the present-day viewer. The vessel for the information has changed, it is no longer found in television or radio but primarily through social media. Currently, television and broadcast media are restricted by Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules which “require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station.” This is a restriction that is nowhere to be found for Social Media organizations.

This is not meant to argue for one side or the other but merely to point out that there is a political discourse being stifled by these social media entities, that have shrouded themselves in the veils of a private entity. However, what these companies fail to mention is just how political they truly are. For instance, Facebook proclaims itself to be an unbiased source for all parties, and yet what it fails to mention is that currently, Facebook employs one of the largest lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. Four Facebooks lobbyist have worked directly in the office of House Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi herself has a very direct connection to Facebook, she and her husband own between $550,000 to over $1,000,000 in Facebook stock. None of this is illegal, however, it raises the question of just how unbiased is Facebook.

If the largest source of news for the coming generation is not television, radio, or news publications themselves, but rather Social Media such as Facebook, then how much power should they be allowed to wield without there being some form of regulation? The question being presented here is not a new one, but rather the same question asked in 1969, simply phrased differently. How much information is a citizen entitled to, and at what point does access to that information outweigh the rights of the organization to exercise its editorial discretion? I believe that the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 1969 and that the government ought to take steps similar to those taken with radio and television. What this looks like is ensuring that through Social Media, that the public has access to a significant amount of information on public issues so that its members can make rational political decisions. At the end of that day that it was at stake, the public’s ability to make rational political decisions.

These large Social Media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter have long outgrown their place as a private entity, they have grown into a public medium that has tethered itself to the realities of billions of people. Certain aspects of it need to be regulated, mainly those that interfere with the Public Interest, there are ways to regulate this without interfering with the overall First Amendment right of Free Speech for all Americans. Where however Social Media blends being a private forum for all people to express their ideas under firmly stated “terms and conditions”, and being an entity that strays into the political field whether it be by censoring heads of state, or by hiring over $50,000,000 worth of lobbyist in Washington D.C, there need to be some regulations put into place that draw the line that ensures the public still maintains the ability to make rational political decisions. Rational decisions that are not influenced by anyone organization. The time to address this issue is now when there is still a middle ground on how people receive their news and formulate opinions.

Say Bye to Health Misinformation on Social Media?

A study from the Center of Countering Digital Hate, found that social media platforms failed to act on 95% of coronavirus-related disinformation reported to them.

…

Over the past few weeks, social media companies have been in the hot seat regarding their lack of action against limiting the amount of fake news and misinformation on their platforms. Especially, the information regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine. Even President Biden remarked on social media platforms- stating Facebook and other companies were “killing people” by serving as platforms for misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccine. Later, Biden clarified his earlier statements by saying that he wasn’t accusing Facebook of killing people, but that he meant he wanted the companies to do something about the misinformation, the outrageous information about the vaccine.”

A few weeks later, Senator, Amy Klobuchar introduced the Health Misinformation Act, which would ultimately create an exemption to Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Section 230 has always shielded social media companies from being liable for almost any of the content that is posted on their platform. However, under the Health Misinformation Act, social media companies would be liable for the spread of health-related misinformation. Further, the bill would only apply to social media platforms that use an algorithm that promotes health misinformation- which most social media platforms use algorithms and would only apply to health misinformation during a health crisis. Additionally, if this bill were to pass, then the Department of Health and Human Services would be authorized to define “health misinformation.” Finally, the proposed bill would only apply during a national public health crisis, such as COVID-19. Therefore, this exemption would not apply during “normal” times, when there is no public health crisis.

Senator Amy Klobuchar and some of her peers believe the time has come to create an exemption to Section 230 because “for far too long, online platforms have not done enough to protect the health of Americans.” Further, Klobuchar believes that the misinformation spread about COVID-19 the vaccine proves to the world that the social media companies have no desire to do anything about this because the misinformation gives the social media platform more activity and because the companies cannot be liable for this misinformation because of Section 230.
Instead, these social media companies, use this misinformation to their advantage to get more activity on their platform by creating features within to incentivizing their users to share the misinformation and to get likes, comments, and other engagements, which rewards engagement rather than accuracy.” Furthermore, a study conducted by MIT found that false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories. Therefore, social media platforms, have no reason to limit this information because of the activity they receive for the misinformation. Especially, when this misinformation benefits the social media platform.

What are the concerns with the Health Misinformation Act?

How will the Department of Health and Human Services define “health misinformation?” it seems very difficult to define such a narrow topic, that the majority will agree upon. Also, I believe there will be a huge amount of criticism from the social media companies about this act. For instance, I can imagine the social media companies arguing how will they be able to implement the definition of “health misinformation” to their algorithm? Such as, what if the information on the health crisis changes? Will the social media company have to constantly change the algorithms with the constant change of health information? For example, at the beginning of the pandemic the information of the importance of the mask changed; from mask not being necessary to masking being crucial to ensure the health and safety of yourself and others.

Will the Bill Pass?

With that being said, I do like the concept of the Health Misinformation Act, because it’s wanting to hold the social media companies accountable for their inaction while trying to protect the public so they receive accurate health-related information. However, I do not believe this bill will pass because of a few issues; first, it may violate the First Amendment, for people’s freedom of speech. Second, while it isn’t right; it is not illegal for individuals to post their opinion or misinformation on social media. Therefore, the bill might not pass because it may violate the First Amendment. Finally, as stated earlier how would social media companies implement these new policies and the change of “health misinformation” and how would the federal agencies regulate the social media companies?

What should be done?

“These are some of the biggest, richest companies in the world and they must do more to prevent the spread of deadly vaccine misinformation.”

…

I believe we need to create more regulations and create more exemptions to Section 230. Especially, because Section 230 was created in 1996, our world looks and operates very differently than it did in 1996. Social media is an essential part of our business and cultural world.
Overall, I believe there need to be more regulations put into place to oversee social media companies. We need to create transparency with these companies, so the world can understand what is going on behind the closed doors of these companies. Transparency will allow for agencies to fully understand the algorithms and make for proper regulations.

To conclude, social media companies are a monopoly- even though there are a lot of them, there is only a handful that holds most of the popularity and power. With that being said, all major businesses and monopolies must follow strict regulations from the government. Yet, social media companies seem exempt from these types of strict regulations.

While there has been a push over the past few years to repeal or make changes to Section 230, do you think this bill can pass? If not, what can be done to create more regulations?

Free speech, should it be so free?

In the United States everybody is entitled to free speech; however, we must not forget that the First Amendment of the Constitution only protects individuals from federal and state actions. With that being said, free speech is not protected from censorship by private entities, like social media platforms. In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides technology companies like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram as well as other social media giants, immunity from liabilities arising from the content posted on their websites. The question becomes whether it is fair for an individual who desires to freely express himself or herself to be banned from certain social media websites by doing so? What is the public policy behind this? What are the standards employed by these social media companies when determining who should or should not be banned? On the other hand, are social media platforms being used as tools or weapons when it comes to politics? Do they play a role in how the public vote? Are the users truly seeing what they think they have chosen to see or are the contents being displayed targeted to the users and may ultimately create biases?

As we have seen earlier this year, former President Trump was banned from several social media platforms as a result of the January 6, 2021 assault at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. It is no secret that our former president is not shy about his comments on a variety of topics. Some audiences view him as outspoken, direct, or perhaps provocative. When Twitter announced its permanent suspension of former President Trump’s account, its rationale was to prevent further incitement of violence. By falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and January 6 which ultimately led to violence and chaos. As a public figure and a politician, our former president should have known that his actions or viewpoints on social media are likely to trigger a significant impact on the public. Public figures and politicians should be held to a higher standard as they represent citizens who voted for them. As such, they are influential. Technology companies like Twitter saw the former president’s tweets as potential threats to the public as well as a violation of their company policies; hence, it was justified to ban his account. The ban was an instance of private action as opposed to government action. In other words, former President Trump’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

First, let us discuss the fairness aspect of censorship. Yes, individuals possess rights to free speech; however, if the public’s safety is at stake, actions are required to avoid chaos. For example, you cannot scream “fire” out of nowhere in a dark movie theater as it would cause panic and unnecessary disorder. There are rules you must comply with in order to use the facility and these rules are in place to protect the general welfare. As a user, if you don’t like the rules set forth by that facility, you can simply avoid using it. It does not necessarily mean that your idea or speech is strictly prohibited, just not on that particular facility. Similar to social media platforms, if users fail to follow their company policies, the companies reserve the right to ban them. Public policy probably outweighs individual freedom. As for the standards employed by these technology companies, there is no bright line. As I previously mentioned, Section 230 grants them immunity from liabilities. That being said, the contents are unregulated and therefore, these social media giants are free to implement and execute policies as they seem appropriate.

In terms of politics, I believe social media platforms do play a role in shaping their users’ perspectives in some way. This is because the contents that are being displayed are targeted, if not tailored, as they collect data based on the user’s preferences and past habits. The activities each user engages in are being monitored, measured, and analyzed. In a sense, these platforms are being used as a weapon as they may manipulate users without the users even knowing. A lot of times we are not even aware that the videos or pictures that we see online are being presented to us because of past contents we had seen or selected. In other words, these social media companies may be censoring what they don’t want you to see or what they may think you don’t want to see. For example, some technology companies are pro-vaccination. They are more likely to post information about facts about COVID-19 vaccines or perhaps publish posts that encourage their users to get vaccinated. We think we have control over what we see or watch, but do we really?

There are advantages and disadvantages to censorship. Censorship can reduce the negative impact of hate speech, especially on the internet. By limiting certain speeches, we create more opportunities for equality. In addition, censorship prevents the spread of racism. For example, posts and videos of racial comments could be blocked by social media companies if deemed necessary. Censorship can also protect minors from seeing harmful content. Because children can be manipulated easily, it helps promote safety. Moreover, censorship can be a vehicle to stop false information. During unprecedented times like this pandemic, misinformation can be fatal. On the other hand, censorship may not be good for the public as it creates a specific narrative in society. This can potentially cause biases. For example, many blamed Facebook for the outcome of an election as it’s detrimental to our democracy.

Overall, I believe that some sort of social media censorship is necessary. The cyber-world is interrelated to the real world. We can’t let people do or say whatever they want as it may have dramatic detrimental effects. The issue is how do you keep the best of both worlds?

Private or not private, that is the question.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), protects private online companies from liability for content posted by others. This immunity also grants internet service providers the freedom to regulate what is posted onto their sites. What has faced much criticism of late however, is social media’s immense power to silence any voices the platform CEOs disagree with.

Section 230(c)(2), known as the Good Samaritan clause, states that no provider shall be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

When considered in the context of a ‘1996’ understanding of internet influence (the year the CDA was created) this law might seem perfectly reasonable. Fast forward 25 years though, with how massively influential social media has become on society and the spread of political information, there has developed a strong demand for a repeal, or at the very least, a review of Section 230.

The Good Samaritan clause is what shields Big Tech from legal complaint. The law does not define obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, harassing or excessively violent. And “otherwise objectionable” leaves the internet service providers’ room for discretion all the more open-ended. The issue at the heart of many critics of Big Tech, is that the censorship companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) impose on particular users is not fairly exercised, and many conservatives feel they do not receive equal treatment of their policies.

Ultimately, there is little argument around the fact that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private companies, therefore curbing any claims of First Amendment violations under the law. The First Amendment of the US Constitution only prevents the government from interfering with an individual’s right to free speech. There is no constitutional provision that dictates any private business owes the same.

Former President Trump’s recent class action lawsuits however, against Facebook, Twitter, Google, and each of their CEOs, challenges the characterization of these entities as being private.

In response to the January 6th Capitol takeover by Trump supporters, Facebook and Twitter suspended the accounts of the then sitting president of the United States – President Trump.

The justification was that President Trump violated their rules by inciting violence and encouraged an insurrection following the disputed election results of 2020. In the midst of the unrest, Twitter, Facebook and Google also removed a video posted by Trump, in which he called for peace and urged protestors to go home. The explanation given was that “on balance we believe it contributes to, rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence” because the video also doubled down on the belief that the election was stolen.

Following long-standing contentions with Big Tech throughout his presidency, the main argument in the lawsuit is that the tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Google, should no longer be considered private companies because their respective CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai, actively coordinate with the government to censor politically oppositional posts.

For those who support Trump, probably all wish to believe this case has a legal standing.

For anyone else who share concerns about the almost omnipotent power of Silicon Valley, many may admit that Trump makes a valid point. But legally, deep down, it might feel like a stretch. Could it be? Should it be? Maybe. But will Trump see the outcome he is looking for? The initial honest answer was “probably not.”

However, on July 15th 2021, White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, informed the public that the Biden administration is in regular contact with Facebook to flag “problematic posts” regarding the “disinformation” of Covid-19 vaccinations.

Wait….what?!? The White House is in communication with social media platforms to determine what the public is and isn’t allowed to hear regarding vaccine information? Or “disinformation” as Psaki called it.

Conservative legal heads went into a spin. Is this allowed? Or does this strengthen Trump’s claim that social media platforms are working as third-party state actors?

If it is determined that social media is in fact acting as a strong-arm agent for the government, regarding what information the public is allowed to access, then they too should be subject to the First Amendment. And if social media is subject to the First Amendment, then all information, including information that questions, or even completely disagrees with the left-lean policies of the current White House administration, is protected by the US Constitution.

Referring back to the language of the law, Section 230(c)(2) requires actions to restrict access to information be made in good faith. Taking an objective look at some of the posts that are removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, along with many of the posts that are not removed, it begs the question of how much “good faith” is truly exercised. When a former president of the United States is still blocked from social media, but the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is allowed to post what appears nothing short of a threat to that same president’s life, it can certainly make you wonder. Or when illogical insistence for unquestioned mass emergency vaccinations, now with continued mask wearing is rammed down our throats, but a video showing one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine expressing his doubts regarding the safety of the vaccine for the young is removed from YouTube, it ought to have everyone question whose side is Big Tech really on? Are they really in the business of allowing populations to make informed decisions of their own, gaining information from a public forum of ideas? Or are they working on behalf of government actors to push an agenda?

One way or another, the courts will decide, but Trump’s class action lawsuit could be a pivotal moment in the future of Big Tech world power.

A Slap in the Face(book)?

Social media law has become somewhat of a contentious issue in recent years. While most people nowadays could not imagine life without it, many realize too, that it’s influence on our daily lives may not be a great thing. As the technology has advanced to unimaginable levels and the platforms have boomed in popularity, it seems as though our smart phones and Big Tech know our every move. The leading social media platform, Facebook, has around 1.82 billion active users a day, with people volunteering all sorts of personal information to be stored in the internet database. Individual profiles hold pictures of our children, our friends, our family, meals we eat, locations we visit. “What’s on your mind?” is the opening invite to any Facebook page, and one can only hazard a guess as to how many people actually answer that question on a daily basis. Social media sites know our likes, our dislikes, our preferences, our moods, the shoes we want to buy for that dress we are thinking of wearing to the party we are looking forward to in three weeks!

With all that knowledge, comes enormous power, and through algorithmic design, social media can manipulate our thoughts and beliefs by controlling what we see and don’t see. With all that power, therefore, should come responsibility, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has created a stark disconnect between the two. What started out as a worthy protection for internet service providers for the content posted by others, has more recently drawn criticism for the lack of accountability held by social media oligarchs such as Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook).

However, that could all be about to change.

On May 28, 2017, three friends lost their lives in a deadly car accident in which the 17-year-old driver, Jason Davis, crashed into a tree at an estimated speed of 113 mph. Landen Brown, 20, and Hunter Morby, 17, were passengers. Tragic accident? Or wrongful death?

Parents of the deceased lay blame on the Snapchat App, which offered a ‘Speed Filter’ that would clock how fast you were moving, and allowed users to snap and share videos of their movements in progress.

You see where this is going.

As quickly became the trend, the three youths used the app to see how fast they could record the speed of their car. Just moments before their deaths, Davis had posted a ‘snap’ clocking the car’s speed at 123 mph. In Lemmon v Snap, the parents of two of the boys brought suit against the social media provider, Snap, Inc., claiming that the app feature encouraged reckless driving and ultimately served to “entice” the young users to their death.

Until now, social media platforms and other internet service providers have enjoyed the protection of near absolute immunity from liability. Written in 1996, Section 230 was designed to protect tech companies from liability, for suits such as defamation, for third party posts. In the early days, it was small tech companies, or an online business with a ‘comments’ feature that generally saw the benefits of the Code. 25 years later, many people are questioning the role of Section 230 within the vastly developing era of social media and the powerful pass it grants Big Tech in many of its societal shortcomings.

Regarded more as an open forum than the publisher or speaker, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat, have been shielded by Section 230 from any legal claims of harm caused by the content posted on their sites.

Applied broadly, it is argued that Section 230 prevents Snap, Inc. from being held legally responsible for the deaths of the three boys in this case, which is the defense the tech company relied upon. The district court dismissed the case on those grounds, holding that the captured speeds fall into the category of content published by a third party, for which the service provider cannot be held liable. The Ninth Circuit however, disagrees. The Court’s interesting swerve of such immunity, is that the speed filter resulted in the deaths of the boys regardless of whether or not their captured speeds were posted. In other words, it did not matter if the vehicle’s speed was shared with others in the app; the fact that the app promotes, and rewards, high speed (although the award system within the app is not entirely clear), is enough.

The implications of this could be tremendous. At a time when debate over 230 reevaluations is already heavy, this precedential interpretation of Section 230 could lead to some cleverly formulated legal arguments for holding internet service providers accountable for some of the highly damaging effects of internet, social media and smart phone usage.

For the many benefits the internet has to offer, it can no longer be denied that there is another, very ugly side to internet usage, in particular with social media.

It is somewhat of an open secret that social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, purposely design their apps to be addictive by its users. It is also no secret that there is a growing association between social media usage and suicides, depression and other mental health issues. Cyber bullying has long been a very real problem. In addition, studies have shown that smart device screen time in very young children has shockingly detrimental impacts on a child’s social and emotional developments, not to mention the now commonly known damage it can have on a person’s eyesight.

An increased rate of divorces has been linked to smart phones, and distracted driving – whether it be texting or keeping tabs on your Twitter retweets, or Facebook ‘likes’– is on the increase. Even an increase in accidents while walking has been linked to distractions caused by the addictive smart devices.

With the idea of accountability being the underlying issue, it can of course be stated that almost all of these problems should be a matter of personal responsibility. Growing apart from your spouse? Ditch your cell phone and reinvent date night. Feeling depressed about your life as you ‘heart’ a picture of your colleague’s wine glass in front of a perfect sunset beach backdrop? Close your laptop and stop comparing yourself to everyone else’s highlights. Step in front of a cyclist while LOL’ing in a group text? Seriously….put your Apple Watch hand in your pocket and look where you are going! The list of personal-blame is endless. But then we hear about three young friends, two still in their teens, who lose their lives engaged with social media, and suddenly it’s not so easy to blame them for their own devastating misfortune.

While social media sites cannot be held responsible for the content posted by others, no matter how hurtful it might be to some, or no matter what actions it leads others to take, should they be held responsible for negligently making their sites so addictive, so emotionally manipulative and so targeted towards individual users, that such extensive and compulsive use leads to dire consequences? According to the Ninth Circuit, negligent app design can in fact be a cause of action for wrongful death.

With a potential crack in the 230-armor, the questions many lawyers will be scrambling to ask are:

- - What duties do the smart device producers and/or internet service providers owe to their users?
  - Are these duties breached by continuing to design, produce, and provide products that are now known to create such disturbing problems?
  - What injuries have occurred and where those injuries foreseeably caused by any such breaches of duty?

For the time being, it is unlikely that any substantial milestone will be reached with regards to Big Tech accountability, but the Ninth Circuit decision in this case has certainly delivered a powerful blow to the Big Tech apparent untouchability in the courtroom.

As awareness of all these social media related issues grow, could this court decision open the door to further suits of defective or negligent product design resulting in death or injury? Time will tell…..stay tuned.

Tag: Section 230

Subscribe By Email