The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Supreme Court considers if Google is liable for recommending ISIS videos

During Feb. 21 oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan asked whether Congress should resolve tech companies’ liability concerns. (Video: Supremecourt.gov)
By
, 
, 
, 
and 
Updated February 21, 2023 at 3:06 p.m. EST|Published February 21, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. EST
Listen
2 min

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a lawsuit that could shift the foundations of internet law. It argues tech companies should be legally liable for harmful content their algorithms promote

The case stems from the killing of 23-year-old Nohemi Gonzalez, a college exchange student, by Islamic State gunmen in Paris in 2015. The Gonzalez family contends that by recommending Islamic State-related content, YouTube — which is owned by Google — acted as a recruiting platform for the group in violation of U.S. laws against aiding and abetting terrorists.

During the nearly three-hour session, Google lawyer Lisa Blatt told the justices that a law known as Section 230 protects the company from legal responsibility for the third-party videos that its recommendation algorithms surface; such immunity is essential to tech companies’ ability to provide useful and safe content to their users, she said. Gonzalez family lawyer Eric Schnapper argued that applying Section 230 to algorithmic recommendations provides an incentive to promote harmful content; he urged the court to narrow those protections.

Here’s what to know

  • During oral arguments that stretched on for more than two-and-a-half hours, the justices at times expressed confusion about the plaintiffs’ case and concern about potentially exposing companies to a deluge of lawsuits over how they handle user content. But the justices also dug into whether there should be any legal distinction between hosting and amplifying user content when it comes to assessing liability, and whether the dispute would best be left to Congress.
  • Courts generally have found that Section 230 shields tech giants from culpability over the posts, photos and videos that people share on their services. Those pushing for a change warn that when Section 230 was written, the contours of today’s online marketplace of ideas were not yet clear.
  • The Gonzalez lawsuit is one of several landmark tech cases pending before the Supreme Court, offering the justices an opportunity to definitively address whether and how internet regulation should be changed.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel

Here's what to know:

During oral arguments that stretched on for more than two-and-a-half hours, the justices at times expressed confusion about the plaintiffs’ case and concern about potentially exposing companies to a deluge of lawsuits over how they handle user content. But the justices also dug into whether there should be any legal distinction between hosting and amplifying user content when it comes to assessing liability, and whether the dispute would best be left to Congress.
Courts generally have found that Section 230 shields tech giants from culpability over the posts, photos and videos that people share on their services. Those pushing for a change warn that when Section 230 was written, the contours of today’s online marketplace of ideas were not yet clear.
The Gonzalez lawsuit is one of several landmark tech cases pending before the Supreme Court, offering the justices an opportunity to definitively address whether and how internet regulation should be changed.

1/3

End of carousel
Live contributors 5
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
RobertBarnes
GerritDe Vynck
CristianoLima
WillOremus
AmyB Wang

1/5

End of carousel
Loading...