Judge Lawrence Riff of the Los Angeles Superior Court has dismissed Snapchat's attempt to invoke Section 230 immunity in a lawsuit involving the overdose of kids on illegal drugs. The lawsuit alleges that Snapchat facilitated the connection between drug dealers and the affected kids. Despite the argument likening it to suing AT&T for a phone call between a drug buyer and dealer, Judge Riff rejected the Section 230 defense.
The judge's ruling appears to be based on a perception that Snap's design, particularly its use of disappearing messages and lack of age verification, is "defective" or "negligent." This interpretation diverges from the usual application of Section 230, which protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content. In this case, the judge suggests that the disappearing messages feature could be seen as a negligent design contributing to the alleged harm.
Judge Riff takes a critical stance on Section 230, citing recent cases and expressing skepticism about the Supreme Court's position on the matter. He mocks commentary on Section 230 and references an article by Jeff Kosseff, whom he refers to as Kossoff. The judge's tone throughout the ruling is breezy and somewhat mocking as he provides an abbreviated and, according to some, misleading history of Section 230.
The ruling is seen by some as undermining the purpose of Section 230, which is to quickly dismiss cases related to user-generated content. By allowing claims based on "negligent design," the judge opens the door for cases to proceed, potentially leading to prolonged and costly legal processes for online platforms. While the case may face challenges in the long run, the rejection of the Section 230 defense means it will move forward, exploring issues related to Snapchat's alleged "negligent design" and other aspects of liability.
Comentários