Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 MARCH 2023

Section 230 Narrowing In The Future?

Katten
Katten
Contributor
Katten

Katten

With client service at our core and a collective desire to foster an inclusive environment for a...

View firm profile
Explore more from Katten

This past week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google. The petitioners are a family that unsuccessfully sued Google for aiding and abetting terrorism when their 23-year old daughter...

United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

This past week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google. The petitioners are a family that unsuccessfully sued Google for aiding and abetting terrorism when their 23-year old daughter was tragically killed in an ISIS attack in Paris in 2015. Their lawsuit alleged that Google, which owns YouTube, violated the Antiterrorism Act's ban by recommending ISIS videos to users through its algorithms, thereby aiding ISIS's recruitment.

The 9th Circuit rejected the lawsuit, affirming its dismissal, on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (sometimes called "the law that created the internet") immunized Google's display of third-party content on the YouTube platform. As framed in the argument, however, the petitioners distinguished between platforms merely displaying content created by others (entitled to immunity), and the platform algorithms that preferentially display popular and relevant information to users (not immune). Google

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from