Snapchat Isn't Liable for Its Speed Filter (Even if Section 230 Doesn't Apply)--Maynard v. Snapchat

Snapchat Isn’t Liable for Its Speed Filter (Even if Section 230 Doesn’t Apply)–Maynard v. Snapchat

Snapchat’s “speed filter” allows users to overlay their speed on their content. Unsurprisingly, some users viewed this as a challenge to capture a high speed on their speed filter; and in the course of doing so, tragedy could occur. In…

Constitutional Challenge to Trump's Anti-230 EO Fails--Rock the Vote v. Trump

Constitutional Challenge to Trump’s Anti-230 EO Fails–Rock the Vote v. Trump

[IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE!] This is one of two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s anti-Section 230 executive order from May. Because the EO said a lot (mostly lies) but did very little, the…

Yet Another Twitter Account Suspension Case Fails--Jones v. Twitter

Yet Another Twitter Account Suspension Case Fails–Jones v. Twitter

Jones had a Twitter account @aboxoffrogs. Twitter permanently suspended the account for hateful conduct. Jones sued Twitter (pro se) for (1) defamation, (2) tortious interference, (3) aiding and abetting, (4) conspiracy, (5) ratification, (6) retraction, (7) violation of Section 230(c),…

Justice Thomas Writes a Misguided Anti-Section 230 Statement "Without the Benefit of Briefing"--Enigma v. Malwarebytes

Justice Thomas Writes a Misguided Anti-Section 230 Statement “Without the Benefit of Briefing”–Enigma v. Malwarebytes

Last year, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a plaintiff could plead around Section 230(c)(2)(B), the safe harbor for providing filtering instructions, by claiming that the filtering was motivated by anticompetitive animus. Last week, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. This isn’t…

LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn

Perez had a LinkedIn account with over 7,000 connections (really?). LinkedIn removed some of his posts and restricted access to his profile due to alleged TOU violations. State Action. Perez, proceeding pro se, alleged that LinkedIn “is subject to the…

Facebook Doesn’t Have a Duty to Prevent a Murder–Godwin v. Facebook

In 2017, Steve Stephens murdered Robert Godwin Sr. On the day of the murder, Stephens made the following post to Facebook: FB my life for the pass year has really been fuck up!!! lost everything ever had due to gambling…

Twitter Wins Another Account Suspension Case--Wilson v. Twitter

Twitter Wins Another Account Suspension Case–Wilson v. Twitter

I previously blogged the plaintiff’s virtually identical lawsuit in June. The plaintiff claimed Twitter suspended his account because he’s a heterosexual Christian. The court rejected all of his claims, including his allegations that Twitter was a state actor and Twitter…

hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Corp., the Web Scraping Saga Continues (Guest Blog Post)

by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Corp. is arguably the most important case in the history of web-scraping jurisprudence. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit concluded that “when a computer network generally permits public access to its data,…

Section 230 Preempts Another Facebook Account Termination Case--Zimmerman v. Facebook

Section 230 Preempts Another Facebook Account Termination Case–Zimmerman v. Facebook

Another pro se lawsuit over Facebook account terminations fails. Some background on the case. This is an easy Section 230 case: “A social media site’s decision to delete or block access to a user’s individual profile falls squarely within this…

Sen. Graham Cares More About Trolls Than Section 230 (Comments on Online Content Policy Modernization Act)

Sen. Graham Cares More About Trolls Than Section 230 (Comments on Online Content Policy Modernization Act)

I’m blogging yet another terrible Section 230 reform proposal: S. 4534, the ‘‘Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act’’ (introduced by Sens. Wicker, Graham, and Blackburn), which has been rolled into S. 4632, the “Online Content Policy Modernization Act.” Despite the…