Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

2024 Recap: Ten Lords A-Leaping!

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

LinkedIN

On October 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit ruled that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> shielded Reddit Inc. from liability under the <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/human_rights/human-trafficking/trafficking-legislation/">Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPA)</a>. The court considered the text of a 2018 amendment to Section 230, known as the <a href="http://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ164/PLAW-115publ164.pdf">Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)</a>, which created a carve-out to Section 230’s broad protections by allowing victims to bring claims against platforms that aided in their trafficking. The <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1972265.html">Ninth Circuit held that the FOSTA exception does not apply where a provider does not “knowingly benefit” from such trafficking</a>.  This is the first time that a federal court of appeals has interpreted how broadly the FOSTA exception to Section 230 applies.Section 230 Protections and FOSTASection 230, once hailed as “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-law-that-gave-us-the-modern-internet-and-the-campaign-to-kill-it/279588/">the law that gave us the modern Internet</a>,” provides broad immunities to internet platforms that host third-party content. It has emerged in recent years as the cause of much debate. In 2018, FOSTA was enacted as a response to sex trafficking claims against Backpage.com, and the <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom">belief that Section 230 insulated the site from liability for facilitating sex trafficking</a>. FOSTA provides that Section 230 does not impair enforcement of “any State criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action targeting conduct that violates a Federal criminal law prohibiting [sex trafficking],” or “impair the enforcement or limit the application of section 1595 of title 18, United States Code.” While there has been much discourse about whether and how to amend Section 230, FOSTA is the only piece of proposed federal legislation to date that has become law.Section 230 provides important protections for many major companies, and these companies, alongside proponents of an uncensored Internet, raised concerns that FOSTA would have deleterious ripple effects, including limiting free speech. The central question that concerned platforms was whether FOSTA meant that they could be held liable when their users violated the sex trafficking statutes underlying FOSTA, or whether they themselves had to violate those laws.The District Court OpinionReddit is a social news aggregation and discussion website that allows users to create forums, or “subreddits,” based on specific interests or community themes. It is essentially a huge collection of forums in which users can comment on and share content, including photos, videos, and links to other sites. Given that it hosts large quantities of user-generated content, Reddit relies heavily on Section 230 to shield it from liability.In April 2021, the plaintiffs sued Reddit as part of a putative class action, Does v. Reddit, alleging that Reddit not only failed to stop, but <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1972265.html">actively profits from, child sexual exploitation materials (CSEM) on its site</a>.  The plaintiffs alleged that Reddit was lackluster in its attempts to remove CSEM from its site and to enforce its own CSEM policies.For instance, Doe 1 alleged that her ex-boyfriend posted sexually explicit images and videos of her, taken while she was 16, to Reddit without her consent.  Then, each time she reported the CSEM of herself to subreddit moderators, the moderators were slow to act, and when the content was eventually removed, it would be added again in minutes.  The complaint alleged that Reddit was in violation of the TVPA, which makes it illegal for any entity to knowingly benefit financially from sex trafficking, including when a minor is made to engage in a commercial sex act.  The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of people who were under 18 when they appeared in an image or video uploaded to Reddit in the last 10 years.  Reddit moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Section 230.Judge Selna, in the Northern District of California, granted Reddit’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that Reddit was protected by Section 230 because Reddit was clearly an interactive computer service, rather than an information content provider, as the plaintiffs contended.  The plaintiffs argued that Reddit was responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information, making it an information content provider not protected by Section 230. But the court held that Reddit simply provided “neutral tools,” which is not sufficient to make an entity an information content provider.  Further, the court held that Reddit’s system of community moderation was not particularly permissive of CSEM material, and so did not materially contribute to users posting CSEM on its website. Lastly, but most significantly, the court held that, to avoid Section 230 immunity under FOSTA, the plaintiffs had to show that Reddit knowingly facilitated posting of CSEM.The Ninth Circuit OpinionOn appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered the scope of FOSTA’s <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1972265.html">exception to Section 230 immunity for civil child sex trafficking claims</a>.  The court opened with a blunt factual framing, stating that, as of 2021, when this suit was filed, there were numerous subreddits that explicitly marketed themselves as fora for CSEM, with names like /r/BestofYoungNSFW and /r/YoungGirlsGoneWild. The court then gave a clear statement of the breadth of Section 230’s protections, “this provision immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties,” and an affirmation that this protection is “robust.”The court outlined the multiple statutory provisions that were implicated in its analysis, first Section 230; then FOSTA, which amended Section 230; and then two sections of the TVPA that FOSTA incorporates, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595.  In concert, the provisions mean that “websites are generally immune from liability for user-posted content, but that immunity does not cover sex trafficking claims if the conduct underlying the claim violates 18 U.S.C. § 1591.”  Reddit argued that a website may only be liable for its own criminal conduct, while the plaintiffs argued that a website may be liable as a beneficiary when someone else’s conduct violated the criminal statute.To resolve the dispute, the Ninth Circuit considered the plain text of FOSTA, as well as the underlying provisions of the TVPA.  <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591">Section 1591 of the TVPA</a> makes it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in sex trafficking, while <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1595">section 1595</a> creates a private right of action for victims of sex trafficking. In its analysis, the court concluded that FOSTA’s plain text, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting a similar immunity exception, required the court to look to the elements of the “underlying” claim. As to the underlying claims, the court found that a website can only be held liable if its own conduct—not a third party’s—violates section 1591.  Meanwhile, the text of section 1595 makes clear that the defendant-website’s conduct is essential to the survival of the claim, and even the structure of the plaintiffs’ complaint emphasized the importance of Reddit’s conduct.  The court therefore concluded that, because an interpretation of the immunity provision in FOSTA requires an interpretation of the underlying statutes, and because the underlying statutes look to the defendant’s own conduct, in order for a plaintiff to invoke FOSTA’s immunity exception, he or she must plausibly allege that the website’s own conduct violated section 1591.   This resolved the question that had previously split district courts in the Ninth Circuit.  An interesting note regarding this analysis is that, in order to determine whether the FOSTA exception applied, the court had to consider whether the underlying <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1972265.html">TVPA provisions applied in the first place</a>.  In its analysis, it determined that Reddit was not liable under section 1595 at all, because that cause of action required that Reddit’s own conduct to violate section 1591, not the conduct of its users.  This finding ultimately means that the plaintiffs’ claims against Reddit could not have survived, even if Section 230 did not exist at all.Beyond the text, the court looked to FOSTA’s original legislative proponents’ understanding of how FOSTA would be interpreted. Congress passed FOSTA in 2018 because courts had shown they were reluctant to hold websites liable in civil trafficking suits stemming from user posts, even when the website had participated in the scheme. Further, although Section 230 as drafted did not immunize websites like Backpage.com from federal criminal sex trafficking laws, it was unclear whether states could bring analogous prosecutions.  Critics of the bill were concerned it went too far in undermining Section 230 and would lead to a deluge of frivolous litigation targeting law-abiding intermediaries.  The Senate altered the bill to its current form, only abridging protections for websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking.  The court acknowledged that, as enacted, 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A), the FOSTA amendment, retains only a “limited capacity to accomplish its original goal of allowing trafficking victims to hold websites accountable,” but that this flaw, or feature, is not one that can be rewritten by judicial fiat.Having concluded that to overcome Section 230 immunity for sex trafficking claims a plaintiff must plead and prove that a defendant-website’s own conduct violated 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the Ninth Circuit determined that the allegations that Reddit “turned a blind eye” to the unlawful content posted on its platform were not allegations that it actively participated in sex trafficking.  As such, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.What It MeansThis ruling is a significant win for proponents of broad and unfettered Section 230 protections. Even in the face of disturbing factual allegations, the Ninth Circuit interpreted FOSTA narrowly according to its text, holding that it only applies when websites knowingly facilitate sex trafficking conduct.

Ninth Circuit Interprets FOSTA Restriction on Section 230 Narrowly

On October 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded Reddit Inc. from liability under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPA).  The court considered the text of a 2018 amendment to Section 230, known as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which created a carve-out to Section 230’s broad protections by allowing victims to bring claims against platforms that aided in their trafficking. The Ninth Circuit held that the FOSTA exception does not apply where a provider does not “knowingly benefit” from such trafficking.  This is the first time that a federal court of appeals has interpreted how broadly the FOSTA exception to Section 230 applies.

Ninth Circuit Interprets FOSTA Restriction on Section 230 Narrowly

A recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20-55295.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lemmon v. Snap</a> provides a reminder that while <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim)" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> provides broad immunity to the owners and operators of websites and mobile apps, that immunity is not without limits.As a refresher, Section 230 provides that “[n]o 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.” Because of the broad immunity that website owners have enjoyed in the 25 years since its enactment, these have been hailed as the 26 words that created the Internet.The District Court ActionThe case centers around the “Speed Filter” that Snap offered on its popular Snapchat messaging app. Users of the app could send a message to their friends, which would display the speed the user was traveling at the point in time that the message was sent.In May 2017, Jason Davis (age 17), Hunter Morby (age 17), and Landen Brown (age 20) were driving down Cranberry Road in Walworth County, Wisconsin. The boys were traveling at speeds up to 123 MPH. They sped along at these high speeds for several minutes, before they eventually ran off the road and crashed into a tree.  Their car burst into flames.  All three boys died. Shortly before the crash, one of the boys opened Snapchat to document how fast they were traveling.In 2019, the parents of two of the boys commenced an action against Snap, the owner and operator of Snapchat, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The parents claimed that Snap was negligent in its design of the Speed Filter.Snap moved to dismiss arguing that the parents had failed to state a claim for negligence and that Snap was in any event immune from suit under Section 230.Under Ninth Circuit authority, Section 230 immunity from liability exists for “(1) provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.”In February 2020, without reaching the issue of whether the parents had properly stated a negligence claim against Snap, the district court held that Snap was entitled to Section 230 immunity and dismissed the parents’ claims. The district court held that Section 230 immunity applies where the website merely provides a framework that could be utilized for proper or improper purposes by the user. The district court found that the Speed Filter is a neutral tool, which can be utilized for both proper and improper purposes.  The district court reasoned that the Speed Filter is essentially a speedometer tool, which allows users to capture and share their speeds with others.The district court was guided by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-849.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.</a> In that case, the plaintiff brought an action against an operator of the “Experience Project” website after her son died from a heroin overdose. The website allowed users to register anonymously, recommended users to join certain groups based on the content of their posts and other attributes and sent email notifications when a user posted content to a group.  The plaintiff’s son posted in a “heroin-related group” regarding where to purchase heroin, received an email notification regarding his post, and ultimately connected off the site to purchase heroin from a contact he made on the site.In Dyroff, the plaintiff argued that the website operator should not receive Section 230 immunity because she was trying to hold the website operator liable for its own “content” — namely, the recommendation and notification functions. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. It held that the website operator was immune from liability under Section 230 because its functions, including recommendations and notifications, were content-neutral tools used to facilitate communications.The Ninth Circuit DecisionOn May 4, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in the parents’ appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their claims. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/snap-must-face-suit-over-speed-filters-role-deadly-car-crash-9th-circuit-2021-05-04/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 immunity does not apply to bar the parents’ negligent design claim against Snap in connection with the Speed Filter.</a>The Ninth Circuit held that because the parents’ claim neither treats Snap as a “publisher or speaker” nor relies on “information provided by another information content provider,” Snap does not enjoy Section 230 immunity from this suit. Here the Ninth Circuit noted the parents seek to hold Snap liable for its allegedly “unreasonable and negligent” design decisions regarding Snapchat. And such claims rests on the premise that manufacturers have a duty to exercise due care in supplying products that do not present an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to the public.The Ninth Circuit held that website and app providers continue to face the prospect of liability, even for their “neutral tools,” so long as plaintiffs’ claims do not blame them for the content that third parties generate with those tools.Key TakeawaysIn recent years, Section 230 immunity has come under increased scrutiny with calls for its reform or repeal. Courts have generally recognized that the language of Section 230 is broadly worded and that the immunity that Congress granted to promote the growth of the Internet should be broadly construed. It remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuit’s Snap decision reflects a movement away from interpreting Section 230 immunity in broad terms. The decision certainly shows that Section 230 immunity has its limits and that those limits will continue to be tested.

L.W. v. Snap Inc.,  675 F. Supp. 3d 1087 

Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea , 2021 WL 3038402 

In re Maxus Energy Corp.

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

James Paul McCartney v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC

NFL Enterprises LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v WebMD Health Corp. 2017 WL 6610411  

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.

Komag, Inc. v. Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.

Asante Techs. Inc. v. PMC–Sierra, Inc.

Biovail Corp. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt. 2009 WL 2844404 

Multi–Faceted Investigation of University Grants

Confidential International Arbitrations

lawrence_j_blog_150x150.png

lawrence_j_common_640x280.jpg

lawrence_j_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lawrence_j_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lawrence_j_social_600x600.jpg

Alex advises on all aspects of complex commercial litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in arbitration. He has represented U.S. and international clients in actions involving 

J. Lawrence

J. Alexander Lawrence

sociallyaware-litigation.jpg

Ninth Circuit’s Snap Decision Limits Section 230 Immunity

Northern District of California Holds that Section 230 Applies to App Store

sociallyaware-litigation

A recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Lemmon v. Snap provides a reminder that while Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides br

Ninth Circuit’s Snap Decision Limits Section 230 Immunity

Experts anticipate that the incoming Biden administration will be tough on tech. What does that mean for the future of §230 of the Communications Decency Act? The antitrust suit against Google? <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/11/09/931039648/how-will-tech-policy-change-in-the-biden-white-house-heres-what-you-need-to-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">This NPR piece</a> makes some predictions.Human rights activists are outraged over a <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/protests-erupt-in-france-over-bill-that-would-restrict-filming-and-publishing-images-of-police-officers-01606766693" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">proposed law in France</a> that would makes it illegal to publish images of police officers with intent to cause them harm. Supporters of the law, which was passed partly in response to demands from police unions, argue that it doesn’t ban people from filming police in action, but rather, just from using the images to cause them physical or psychological injury.<a href="https://www.brecorder.com/news/40048358" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Regulations in Pakistan</a> expand the power of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) by allowing the agency to require social media platforms with more than half a million users in the country to register with the PTA and establish a permanent office and database servers in Pakistan.We’ve discussed the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2020/03/03/fake-news-paid-reviews/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising</a> on Socially Aware. Here are some tips on how to comply with the <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ftc-lawyer-uk-endorsement-guide-compliance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">UK’s guidelines for social media influencers</a>.Trying to use social media to convince people that COVID-19 vaccinations are the way to end the pandemic? Think again. <a href="https://www.axios.com/social-media-covid-vaccine-poll-b49a343c-cd5e-4eb0-81d9-1ad7c37ff899.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harris Poll endorsements</a> show that “more than half of Americans say they have little or no trust in social media when it comes to information on the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions.











Anthony Ramirez

Social Links: Internet law under Biden; new tech-laws around the world; the UK’s Endorsement Guides

Social Links: Internet law under Biden; new tech-laws around the world; the UK’s Endorsement Guides