Section 230 Once Again Immunizes Google’s Search Results–Metroka v. PA Law Enforcement

June 4, 2023 · by · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability

In June 2022, Nadia Metroka (a Florida lawyer, apparently) was arrested in Pennsylvania. “Information about the arrest was published on the Montgomery County Crimewatch website, and it was ‘picked up by GOOGLE’s search engine.'” (Is this the news release in question?) Metroka sued Google pro se for the search results. The court easily dismisses per Section 230:

  • ICS Provider. Numerous courts have held Google is one.
  • Publisher/Speaker Claims. The plaintiff alleged that Google published the search results.
  • Third-Party Content. The “information in the Crimewatch post was created by the Lower Moreland Township Police Department, not by Google.”

The court summarizes: “Google has immunity from her state law claims, as it cannot be held liable for search engine results showing a third party’s statement.”

Courts have sometimes struggled with mugshot cases, but the courts are decisive when it comes to Google search results: Google isn’t liable for presenting third-party content in its search results. This court repeatedly cites the Kabbaj case. Some other cases applying Section 230 to search results include:

Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc., 143 Cal. App. 4th 1242 (Cal. App. Ct. 2006); Murawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Shah v. MyLife.Com, Inc., 2012 WL 4863696 (D. Or. 2012); Merritt v. Lexis Nexis, 2012 WL 6725882 (E.D. Mich. 2012); Nieman v. Versuslaw, Inc., 2012 WL 3201931 (C.D. Ill. 2012); Getachew v. Google, Inc., 491 Fed. Appx. 923 (10th Cir. 2012); Mmubango v. Google, Inc., 2013 WL 664231 (E.D. Pa. 2013); O’Kroley v. Fastcase Inc., 831 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2016); Fakhrian v. Google Inc., 2016 WL 1650705 (Cal. App. Ct. 2016); Despot v. Baltimore Life Insurance Co., 2016 WL 4148085 (W.D. Pa. 2016); Manchanda v. Google, Inc., 2016 WL 6806250 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Mosha v. Yandex Inc., 2019 WL 5595037 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); White v. Discovery Communications LLC, 2023 WL 3335417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 10, 2023)

Case citation: Metroka v. Pennsylvania State Law Enforcement, 2023 WL 3767745 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2023)

UPDATE: Metroka v. Pa. State L. Enf’t, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23188 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2024). The court says:

Under the Communications Decency Act, “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider[,]” and “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Immunity under Section 230 “requires three elements: (1) [the] defendant must be a provider or user of an ‘interactive computer service;’ (2) the asserted claims must treat [the] defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and (3) the challenged communication must be ‘information provided by another information content provider.'” Kabbaj v. Google, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47425, 2014 WL 1369864, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014). Numerous courts have found that Google is a provider of such interactive computer services. As to the second element, “[t]raditional acts of an editorial, or publishing, nature include ‘deciding whether to publish, withdraw, or alter content.'” 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47425, [WL] at *3 (quoting Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 2003)). Google does none of these. As to the final element, “[i]f a defendant did not create or author the statement in controversy, but rather is provided that statement by a third-party information content provider, then that defendant cannot be held liable under the Act.” Per Metroka’s complaint, Google “indexed, published, maintained, and disseminated” the information in the Crimewatch post, but it was created by the Lower Moreland Township Police Department, not Google.

Metroka further asserts that the District Court erred in finding that Section 230 gave Google immunity to violate cherished constitutional rights to privacy and fair proceedings, but that argument is based only on the incorrect and unsupported view that Section 230 immunity “does not apply to federal causes of action or state law causes of action.” And Metroka again alleges the District Court erred in denying leave to amend her complaint, but, as with her other claims, the Court correctly observed that amendment would have been futile.

Conspicuously missing from this discussion: any reference to the Anderson v. TikTok case, where a panel of the 3rd Circuit blew up Section 230 and seemingly gutted the Green v. AOL precedent. However, the Anderson opinion had an awkward footnote suggesting that search results still qualify for 230, even as it said that First Amendment protected editorial decisions don’t qualify for Section 230 (which seemingly include algorithmically generated search results). It would have been helpful if this panel had reconciled its ruling with the Anderson ruling. Or maybe 3rd Circuit judges are hoping that they can just ignore the Anderson precedent and keep doing what they had been doing for 20+ years?