Section 230 Applies to YouTube and Google Search Results–Montano v. Washington Department of Health

The court summarizes some of the plaintiff’s concerns:

all [] [D]efendants acted with malice against [] [P]laintiff who is a member of a protected class “LGBTQ” as a self-identified gay individual, causing [] [P]laintiff to suffer monetary damages including loss of employment, and a wrongful suspension of his dental practicing privileges in Washington State and is serving to deprive him of future employment as a license practice practitioner [sic] in the State of Florida.

This page gives you a sense of the complaints against the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued many defendants. I’ll focus on Section 230 and Google/YouTube. It’s a little fuzzy exactly what Google allegedly did wrong, but it appears the plaintiff is complaining that the state defamed the plaintiff and the state’s allegations were picked up in Google’s search engine and in video uploaded to YouTube. The court dismisses the claims on their prima facie elements as well as Section 230.

ICS Provider. “There can be no dispute that Google (and YouTube) fit within this definition. Moreover, other courts have reached the same conclusion.”

Publisher/Speaker Claim. “each claim against Google arises from activities that fall within a publisher’s traditional functions….the Complaint alleges that Google merely displayed information posted by a third-party (or third-parties) — the Washington State Department of Health and/or the News Media Defendants. This is insufficient to hold Google liable.”

Case Citation: Montano v. Wash. State Dep’t of Health, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95402 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2024)