Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Gonzalez v. Google LLC
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: February 21, 2023
Decided: May 18, 2023
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
N/A
Majority
Per curiam

Gonzalez v. Google LLC is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 18, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the court on February 21, 2023. The court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a per curiam ruling, sending the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the outcome in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the scope of liability and immunity for internet service providers and platforms under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?"[2]
  • The outcome: Because the secondary liability claims in this case are materially similar to Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the case was vacated and remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    In 1996, U.S. Congress passed the Communications Decency Act. The law provides general immunity to internet platforms from liability for content published by users of their services.[2]

    In November 2015, U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed at La Belle Equipe bistro in Paris in a terrorist attack committed by the Islamic State (IS). Gonzalez's family filed a lawsuit under the Antiterrorism Act in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Google, alleging that videos on its YouTube platform aided the Islamic State's recruitment efforts and specifically recommended the videos through its user-targeting algorithms. In the petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Reynaldo Gonzalez et al. asked the court to consider whether providers are still protected from liability when their algorithms target users and recommend others users' content to them.[2][3]

    Section 230, Communications Decency Act (1996)

    In the petition for a writ of certiorari, Gonzalez asked the court to review Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which states:[2]Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer. Use a descriptive title

    “ (c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material

    (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

    No 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.[4]

    		”

    Ninth Circuit opinion

    On appeal from the Northern District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that Section 230 protects the algorithmic recommendations. Writing for the majority, Judge Morgan Christen wrote:[5]

    “ This opinion addresses three separate appeals. The Gonzalez appeal concerns claims for both direct and secondary liability against Google. In that case, the district court granted Google's motion to dismiss, concluding that most of the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ claims were barred pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ direct liability claims failed to adequately allege proximate cause. The Taamneh and Clayborn appeals concern claims for secondary liability against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. In both of these cases, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a secondary liability claim under the ATA.


    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude the district court in Gonzalez properly ruled that § 230 bars most of the Gonzalez Plaintiffs’ claims, and that the Gonzalez Plaintiffs failed to state an actionable claim as to their remaining theories of liability asserted pursuant to the ATA. In Taamneh, we conclude the district court erred by ruling the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for aiding-and-abetting liability under the ATA. The district court did not reach § 230 immunity in Taamneh. In Clayborn, we conclude the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead their claim for aiding-and-abetting liability. We therefore affirm the judgments in Gonzalez and Clayborn, and reverse and remand for further proceedings in Taamneh.[4]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a per curiam opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in light of the Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh decision, because the secondary liability claims in this case are materially similar.

    A per curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated. Click here for more information.[1]

    Opinion

    In its opinion, the court wrote:[1]

    “

    Plaintiffs did not seek review of the Ninth Circuit’s holdings regarding their revenue-sharing claims. In light of those unchallenged holdings and our disposition of Twitter, on which we also granted certiorari and in which we today reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, it has become clear that plaintiffs’ complaint—independent of §230—states little if any claim for relief. As plaintiffs concede, the allegations underlying their secondary-liability claims are materially identical to those at issue in Twitter. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 58. Since we hold that the complaint in that case fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting under §2333(d)(2), it appears to follow [4]

    		”
    —Per curiam

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Related cases

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "REYNALDO GONZALEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. GOOGLE LLC," May 18, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "Gonzalez v. Google LLC: On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit," filed April 4, 2022
    3. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court agrees to hear nine new cases, including challenge to tech companies’ immunity under Section 230," October 3, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, decided June 22, 2021
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 21, 2023
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 21, 2023
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gonzalez_v._Google_LLC&oldid=9143827"