Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 FEBRUARY 2017

Snapchat Clocks Section 230 Win In Speed Filter Case

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

We have been monitoring a trend of cases narrowing the immunity provided to website operators under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

We have been monitoring a trend of cases narrowing the immunity provided to website operators under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).  A recent decision by a state court in Georgia, however, demonstrates that Section 230 continues to be applied expansively in at least some cases.

The case, Maynard v. McGee, arose from an automobile collision in Clayton County, Georgia.  Christal McGee, the defendant, had allegedly been using Snapchat's "speed filter" feature, which tracks a car's speed in real-time and superimposes the speed on a mobile phone's camera view. According to the plaintiffs, one of whom had been injured in the collision, McGee was using the speed filter when the accident occurred, with the intention of posting a video on Snapchat showing how fast she was driving.  The plaintiffs sued McGee and Snapchat for negligence, and Snapchat moved to dismiss based on the immunity provided by Section 230.

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.

See more popular content from