Section 230 and Platform Accountability

FAQs

What is platform accountability litigation?

Platform accountability litigation refers to holding tech companies liable for the harms caused by their algorithmic design, platform architecture, and business practices, despite the protections provided under Section 230. This litigation focuses on the design of a website rather than the content that is posted by third-party users. These lawsuits require a strong strategy to be successful. Our Washington, D.C. lawyers can advise on the legal avenues that may allow you to seek justice.

Does Section 230 protect platforms from all lawsuits?

No, Section 230 does not provide broad protection from all liability lawsuits. Although it does give social media networks and other websites strong immunity for the content posted by their users, there are limitations and clear exceptions to this defense.

If social media networks violate federal sex trafficking laws, survivors and their families may be able to hold them accountable. Likewise, if a platform creates and posts harmful content, people who are harmed can also take legal action against them.

How are courts handling social media lawsuits?

The courts are still largely divided over how to handle social media lawsuits. However, certain court decisions have allowed claims against technology companies for negligent product design to proceed, including claims involving manipulative algorithms and infinite scroll, instead of the actual content on a website or app. By framing cases around defective design, plaintiffs have sometimes avoided dismissal under the traditional legal protections of Section 230.

Due to the controversy surrounding whether tech companies should be held liable, it is critical to work with an experienced attorney in Washington, D.C.

What changes to Section 230 are being discussed?

Thirty years after the law was passed, there are many legislative efforts seeking Section 230 reform. These include:

• The Sunset Section 230 Act: This bill, which proposes the complete repeal of Section 230, is still being actively proposed. It has been introduced in Congress in different forms but has not yet been enacted. It would start a two-year clock. If the bill is passed, the law will be revoked once those two years have expired. Although this Act would repeal Section 230, its sponsors say the two-year delay is intended to encourage negotiations over possible reforms.
• Senate Committee hearings: The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is currently debating Section 230 reforms. During sessions, legislators analyze how amending or repealing the law would impact content moderation, constitutional free speech rights, and the moderation powers of big tech companies.
• Targeted proposals for exemptions: Proposals continue to emerge that focus on exceptions to the current law. These exceptions would remove immunity from specific areas such as federal civil lawsuits, child safety, and antitrust actions. They also seek to narrow down definitions of terms such as ‘good faith’ to require platforms to provide greater transparency regarding the moderation of their content.

How do trial lawyers approach platform liability cases?

Trial lawyers approach platform liability cases by reframing the problem as a defective product issue rather than one of speech. This may allow them to avoid the protections on content and hold social networks responsible for the design and engineering choices they made.

During an aggressive discovery process, lawyers can seek many internal records such as testing results, research, and risk assessments that show tech executives knew of the possible risks but still chose to prioritize engagement over user safety. Lawyers will also utilize expert testimony to break down complex digital design patterns into language that is easy to understand. Other expert witnesses, such as mental health professionals, can also advise on the psychological effects social media has on users, particularly those who are very young.