Meta, Google under attack court cases bypass 30-year-old legal shield

For the past three decades, internet giants have managed to prevent content on their platforms from being subject to legal sanctions, thanks to a law that separates companies from online publishers. However, these protections appear to be weakening.

Meta And GoogleAdvertising companies that dominate the U.S. digital advertising market find themselves defendants in a series of lawsuits that serve to collectively undermine the long-standing notion that they have legal protection over what appears on their sites, apps and services. Companies like TikTok and Snap are in the same situation.

What is unifying about the recent cases is that they are designed to circumvent Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and President Bill Clinton signed. The law, which originated in the early days of the internet, protects websites from being sued for content posted by their users and allows sites to act as moderators without being held accountable for what stays up to date.

last week one jury in new mexico While finding Meta liable in a child safety case, jurors in Los Angeles detain Facebook’s parent and Google’s YouTube negligent in a personal injury case. Days after these decisions were announced, victims of notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein filed a class-action lawsuit against Google and the Trump administration over allegations of improper disclosure of personal information.

In this complaint, plaintiffs argue that Google’s AI Mode, which offers AI-powered summaries and links, “is not a neutral search index”; This is a clear effort to make the case that Google isn’t just a platform that stands between users and the information they’re looking for.

“The plaintiffs’ bar is winning the battle against Section 230 through systematic, relentless litigation that creates gaps and cracks in its protection,” Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said in an interview.

The risks are huge as the tech sector emerges from the age of traditional online search and social networking and enters a world defined by artificial intelligence, where models designed by the owners of the largest platforms deliver conversations, images and videos that range from the controversial to the potentially illegal. Financial penalties imposed to date have been minimal — less than $400 million in damages between last week’s two verdicts — but the cases set a troubling precedent for tech giants betting their futures on artificial intelligence.

“Tech companies have long used Section 230 as an excuse to avoid taking meaningful action to protect users, especially children, from horrific harm, harassment and abuse, and fraud and fraud,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said at the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the 30th anniversary of Section 230 in March. “It doesn’t mean they don’t know what happened or even why.” “To do anything about it would hurt their profitability, and as long as federal law provides a shield, why bother?”

Meta declined to comment for this story. Google did not respond to a request for comment. Both companies said they plan to appeal last week’s decisions.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have proposed all kinds of reforms to Section 230 over the years, and company executives have faced public criticism in congressional hearings for alleged harms caused by their platforms.

During his first term in office, President Donald Trump supported greater restrictions on social media companies that he viewed as biased against him. And Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential hopeful, told the New York Times: editorial board He said Section 230 “should be repealed” for tech platforms, including Facebook, that are “spreading lies that they know are false.”

“None of these have fully come to fruition, in part because they are complex questions,” Nadine Farid Johnson, policy director at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, said of the legislative efforts.

But as the issue stagnates in Washington, D.C., plaintiff attorneys are finding other ways to hold big tech companies accountable.

Last week’s verdict against Meta and YouTube was the first time a jury found the social media platforms liable for what plaintiffs’ lawyers allege were deliberately addicting minors with their products. The case was about how the platforms were designed, not just what content they carried.

The plaintiffs argued that the combination of features such as autoplay, recommendation algorithms, notifications and certain filters acted like “digital casinos” and caused serious mental health problems for a young girl who claimed she could not stop using the apps.

A class-action lawsuit filed against Google last week by a plaintiff going by the pseudonym Jane Doe alleged that the company’s AI Mode generated its own summaries and links and exposed the personally identifiable information (PII) of Epstein’s victims, including names, phone numbers and email addresses.

Kevin Osborne, the plaintiff’s attorney in the case, said in an interview with CNBC that the lawsuit was filed after Google denied a request to remove the victims’ contact information from the AI ​​mode. Osborne said the case had to move quickly because information spread so quickly.

“When we applied, we applied because we needed to take action as quickly as possible to get these items removed,” said Osborne, a partner at Erickson Kramer Osborne in San Francisco. “People are getting calls and death threats from complete strangers. It’s a nightmare.”

Osborne added that the timing was “coincidental” given Meta’s court defeats last week, but said there were overlaps in that they all involved plaintiffs’ efforts to circumvent Section 230. In his case, Osborne said “this is a mode of AI that emerges with its own content, and that’s something that hasn’t been explored in great detail by the courts.”

Matthew Bergman, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles case. testified He told a Senate committee in March that the tech industry relied on overly broad interpretations of Section 230 to “avoid all possible legal liability for third-party content being somewhere in the causal chain of its abuses.”

Bergman said he is looking closely at 2021 decision In an appeals court case involving allegations about the role a Snapchat feature played in a fatal car crash. The court overturned the previous decision dismiss suit under Section 230 with reference to the plaintiff’s allegations. Snaps Negligent design encouraged young people to drive recklessly.

“I have crafted a very narrow legal theory that could legally allow some cases brought by parents to proceed despite Section 230,” Bergman told lawmakers.

Evidence presented in Los Angeles supported the plaintiff’s claims that Meta and YouTube executives knew about the design hazards of their products and failed to adequately address them. “The best way to prove our case is through our own documents,” Bergman said at a news conference about the case on Monday.

In the Google AI Mode case, the plaintiff also pointed out design flaws related to the public display of personal information.

“Google provides this personal information in a manner that is intentionally designed, or at least substantially certain, to incite harassment and fear,” the lawsuit states.

Osborne expanded on this idea.

“Google didn’t just provide our customer’s email address,” he said. “They created a link, so when you’re reading the content, looking at the AI ​​mode, all you have to do is click a button and you can directly [Epstein] surviving.”

This isn’t the first lawsuit filed against Google over AI’s interaction with users; This issue also created legal challenges for ChatGPT creator OpenAI.

In early March, Jonathan Gavalas’ father filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the Gemini chatbot of persuading his son to perform a series of tasks, including staging a “catastrophic accident.” The lawsuit alleges that young Gavalas committed suicide on Gemini’s instructions.

And in January, Google settled with families who sued the company and Character.AI, claiming their technology caused harm to minors, including suicide. Last year, OpenAI was sued by a family who blamed ChatGPT for the suicide death of their teenage son.

If you have suicidal thoughts or are in distress, Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Call 988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor.

WRISTWATCH: Harvard Law professor says more lawsuits will be filed after Meta decision.