Neville et al. v. Snap, Inc.: A Potential Game-Changer for the Social Media Free Speech Debate
The digital realm is constantly evolving, and with it, the legal framework that governs online interactions. Now a California lawsuit, Neville et al. v. Snap, Inc., is challenging the long-held understanding of the protections provided to owners of social media platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Beyond fueling debates surrounding social media and free speech, a final result in favor of the plaintiffs in that action could potentially reshape the liability landscape for social media companies and the broader tech industry.
Understanding Section 230
Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) is a cornerstone of internet law. It generally protects “providers of an interactive computer service” from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of information shared by third parties on their platforms. This protection has historically served as a broad shield for tech companies against lawsuits based on user-generated content. The intent behind Section 230 was to foster innovation and free speech online, preventing platforms from over-censoring content for fear of liability. It’s important to note Section 230 does not protect conduct that violates any federal criminal statute, electronic communications privacy law, or intellectual property rights.
The Neville et al. v. Snap, Inc. Challenge: Beyond Content Moderation.
Neville et al. v. Snap, Inc. involves claims brought by parents whose children allegedly purchased fentanyl-laced drugs through connections made with sellers using the social media app Snapchat, leading to serious injuries and deaths. The plaintiffs argue that Snapchat’s features and design facilitated these illegal transactions, creating an “open-air drug market” within the app.
Unlike previous lawsuits that have focused on content moderation, the Neville case centers on the platform’s features and design as factors causally related to the injuries alleged. The plaintiffs argue that Snapchat’s features, such as automatic message deletion, location mapping, and “quick-add,” create an environment conducive to illegal drug sales. They also contend that Snap was aware of the use of its app to facilitate illicit drug transactions, but failed to implement adequate safeguards. Moving to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, Snap invoked Section 230 immunity, arguing that the alleged harm stemmed from third-party content and therefore fell under the broad protections of Section 230.
The Court’s Decision: A Shift in Perspective?
In a 34-page opinion sustaining the legal sufficiency of several of the plaintiffs’ claims as pleaded, including those alleging negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation, the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles disagreed with Snap’s interpretation. While acknowledging Snapchat as an “interactive computer service” and recognizing that Section 230 protects social media companies against liability as a “publisher or speaker,” the court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were not based on Snap simply acting as a “publisher or speaker.” Rather, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that their claims focus on the alleged dangers of Snap’s product design and business decisions, independent of the content posted by sellers of illicit drugs. The court emphasized that these claims were beyond Snap’s “incidental editorial functions,” which are typically protected by Section 230.
Read the court’s opinion in full here.
One to Watch
If the Neville plaintiffs ultimately prevail on their claims – a result that will depend on numerous legal and evidentiary issues yet to be addressed – such an outcome could have significant implications for the tech industry in general and social media platforms in particular. But while the final outcome of the Neville case remains a distant unknown at this time, even at this early stage of the litigation it represents a notable moment in the ongoing debate about social media free speech, the protections of Section 230, and the responsibilities of social media companies, highlighting the complex intersection of technology, law, and public safety. Bleakley Platt & Schmidt’s Litigation Practice Group will continue to closely monitor this case as it proceeds.