The hotly debated Section 230 is again under the scope of the Supreme Court as the court recently heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google LLC. The plaintiff, Reynaldo Gonzalez, whose daughter was killed in a 2015 Paris terrorist attack, is seeking to hold Google’s YouTube liable for its algorithms allegedly recommending ISIS recruitment videos. This lawsuit could damage the internet, potentially opening up platforms to lawsuits for any content their algorithms recommend to users.
If the court rules against Google, future online innovation would be significantly hampered, as weakened protections under Section 230 would make entrepreneurs less likely to create services that host third-party content.
The question the Supreme Court is exploring is: “Does section 230(c)(l) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?” Put simply, do interactive computer services forfeit their liability protections when they use algorithms that recommend content?
