Justices at the United States Supreme Court have expressed uncertainty over whether to narrow a legal shield protecting internet companies from a wide array of lawsuits, in a major case involving YouTube and the family of an American student fatally shot in a 2015 rampage in Paris. The family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old student at California State University, Long Beach, who was studying in France, has brought an appeal against Google LLC-owned YouTube after a lower court dismissed their lawsuit. The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals relied on a federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users.
This case marks the first time the Supreme Court is examining the scope of Section 230. During the hearing, the justices asked questions that reflected their concerns about the potential consequences of limiting immunity for internet companies — or figuring out where to draw that line. They also conveyed scepticism that these businesses should be shielded for certain types of harmful or defamatory content. The justices wondered whether YouTube should lose immunity if the algorithms that provide recommendations are “neutral” or are used to organise content based on users’ interests.
The lawsuit, accusing the company of providing “material support” for “terrorism”, was brought under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal law that lets Americans recover damages related to “an act of international terrorism”. The Gonzalez family claimed that YouTube, through its computer algorithms, unlawfully recommended videos by the group ISIL (ISIS), which claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks that killed 130 people.
Google and its supporters have said a win for the plaintiffs could prompt a flood of litigation against platforms and upend how the internet works. Many websites and social media companies use similar technology to give users relevant content such as job listings, search engine results, songs and movies. Critics of the law have said it too often prevents platforms from being held accountable for real-world harms. President Joe Biden’s administration has called for Section 230 to be reformed and asked the Supreme Court to revive the lawsuit by Gonzalez’s family.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 ruled that the lawsuit was barred by Section 230 because it was seeking to hold Google accountable for the ISIL content, and its algorithms did not treat the group’s content differently than any other user-created content. During the hearing, justices questioned whether Section 230 should apply given that recommendations are provided by YouTube itself and whether Google would collapse and the internet be destroyed if YouTube and therefore Google were potentially liable for hosting and refusing to take down videos that it knows are defamatory and false.
The Supreme Court justices have expressed uncertainty over whether to narrow the legal shield protecting internet companies from lawsuits in the case involving YouTube and Nohemi Gonzalez’s family. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. During the hearing, justices raised concerns about limiting immunity for internet companies or figuring out where to draw that line.
The lawsuit accused YouTube of providing “material support” for “terrorism” under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, claiming that its computer algorithms unlawfully recommended videos by the group ISIL (ISIS). Google and its supporters have argued that a win for the plaintiffs could prompt a flood of litigation against platforms and upend how the internet works. Critics of the law have said it too often prevents platforms from being held accountable for real-world harms.
President Joe Biden’s administration has called for Section 230 to be reformed and asked the Supreme Court to revive the lawsuit by Gonzalez’s family. The justices questioned whether Section 230 should apply given that recommendations are provided by YouTube itself and whether Google would collapse and the internet be destroyed if YouTube and therefore Google were potentially liable for hosting and refusing to take down videos that it knows are defamatory and false. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this case and what implications it will have on Section 230 protections.