• Home
  • About Us
  • Meet The Team
  • Practice Areas
    • Defamation Law
    • Internet Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Ecommerce Law
    • Advertising Law
    • Social Media Law
  • Internet Law Blog
  • Contact Us

Call Toll Free 1-866-570-8585

Find An Office Near You
Speak With an Internet Lawyer Now
RM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law FirmRM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law Firm
RM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law FirmRM Warner Law | Online, Marketing, Internet Business Law Firm
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Meet The Team
  • Practice Areas
    • Defamation Law
    • Internet Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Ecommerce Law
    • Advertising Law
    • Social Media Law
  • Internet Law Blog
  • Contact Us

Section 230 Can’t Save Snapchat From This Lawsuit – Parents of Son’s Who Died Speeding Blame Snapchat’s MPH Feature

Home » Internet Law » Section 230 Can’t Save Snapchat From This Lawsuit – Parents of Son’s Who Died Speeding Blame Snapchat’s MPH Feature
section 230 snapchat

Section 230 Can’t Save Snapchat From This Lawsuit – Parents of Son’s Who Died Speeding Blame Snapchat’s MPH Feature

June 10, 2021 Posted by Raees Mohamed Internet Law, Social Media Law No Comments

The popular video and photo sharing app Snapchat has a feature that allows users to show how many MPH their current speed is, whether in a car, airplane, moving train, etc. Even though this feature can be exciting to use when filming at high speeds, it can also be dangerous, and even detrimental, when snapchatting while driving.  

In 2017, three teenage boys drove up to 123 MPH before losing control, crashing into a tree and dying, all while documenting their speed on Snapchat. Two of the boys’ parents sued Snapchat for “failing to regulate what users post through the Speed Filter; if the users were not motivated to capture their high speeds for content, they would not speed,” according to court documents. 

Snapchat’s MPH Feature

Lemmon v. Snap: Lawsuit Dismissed Thanks To Section 230 

At first, this case was dismissed under Section 230 protections. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants immunity to internet providers and social media companies from liability on what users post on their platforms. For example, if someone posted a defamatory Facebook post, Facebook is not liable, the user who posted it is. Furthermore, Facebook is also not required to remove the defamatory post, even if it is proven to be false and defamatory in court.  

For years, Section 230 has allowed social media companies to get away with misinformation and defamatory content posted on their platforms. However, in this particular case, it seems like Section 230 might not be able to save Snapchat.  

Appeals Court Reverses Lemmon v. Snap Ruling 

The parents appealed the District Court’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals disagreed, reversing the District Court’s dismissal on the basis of immunity under the Communications Decency Act. The Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court’s application of a certain three-prong test and found error.  

You can read the full ruling here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20-55295.pdf 

“In short, Snap, Inc. was sued for the predictable consequences of designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encouraged dangerous behavior. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Snap, Inc. did not enjoy immunity from this suit under § 230(c)(1) of the CDA,” according to the court ruling.  

In other words, the appeals court viewed the parents’ lawsuit as seeking to hold snapchat liable as the designer of a feature that encourages dangerous behavior and not as the publisher or speaker, and therefore, Section 230 immunity would not apply.  

“The law is clear that CDA immunity only applies if the immunity is being sought by ‘(1) a 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 this case, Snap was not being sought to be held liable for being a publisher or speaker, or on the basis of information provided by another person or “content provider,” says Internet Attorney Daniel Warner.  

Learn more about Section 230 here.  

Get in contact with an experienced Internet Attorney here.  

Tags: communications decency actinternet lawsection 230snapchatsocial media lawsocial media lawyer
No Comments
Share
0

About Raees Mohamed

Raees is a Founding Partner at RM Warner PLC, a corporate and Internet Law firm that caters to startups and entrepreneurs. He is also an adjunct professor of law in the acclaimed Innovation Advancement Program legal clinic at the Sandra Day O’Connor College Of Law in Phoenix. There, he teaches law students how to counsel local entrepreneurs as Rule 39 certified student-practitioners. Raees believes the push for the advancement of innovation and a culture of entrepreneurship should come from academic institutions.

You also might be interested in

lone microphone | RM Warner Inernet Law Firm

Facebook & The “F-Word”: Free Speech

Apr 15, 2019

What is a Public Forum? When the founding fathers first[...]

pizza and ingredients | RM Warner Inernet Law Firm

Papa John’s Saucy Corporate Takeover Issues

Apr 11, 2019

You’ve all heard of Papa John’s, one of the world’s[...]

facebook censorship | RM Warner Inernet Law Firm

Free Speech vs. Government Censorship

Apr 18, 2019

The Internet and the First Amendment are in a constant[...]

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.
Cancel Reply

Recent Posts

  • 5 Essential Agreements Every E-Commerce Site Should Have
  • How to Copyright Your Software Idea: 4 Main Steps
  • 10 Reasons Why You Need a Start-Up Lawyer for Your Online Business
  • Anonymous Blogging and Defamation: Balancing Interests of the Internet
  • In Cases of Internet Defamation, Where Can You Sue?

Recent Comments

  • Raees Mohamed on Cyberbullying Lawyer: How to Sue for Cyberbullying with Defamation Laws
  • Sylvia Richards on Cyberbullying Lawyer: How to Sue for Cyberbullying with Defamation Laws
  • WebDirectory on Can I Sue Someone For Leaking My ‘OnlyFans’ Content?
  • Links.M106.COM on Dr. Dre’s Divorce Battle Is Nothing But a “G” Thang: Soon-To-Be Ex-Wife Fights For the Intellectual Property Rights to His Name
  • Website directory on Can Jussie Smollett be Sued for Defamation?

Contact Us

Send us a message and we'll get back to you, asap.

Send Message
Speak With An Internet Lawyer Today Call Now
  • Defamation Law
  • Internet Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Ecommerce Law
  • Advertising Law
  • Social Media Law
Footer Icon PNG White | RM Warner Inernet Law Firm

Recent Posts

  • 5 Essential Agreements Every E-Commerce Site Should Have
  • How to Copyright Your Software Idea: 4 Main Steps
  • 10 Reasons Why You Need a Start-Up Lawyer for Your Online Business
  • Anonymous Blogging and Defamation: Balancing Interests of the Internet
  • In Cases of Internet Defamation, Where Can You Sue?

Tweets by RMWarnerLaw1

  • RM Warner Instagram
  • Blog
  • Terms of Service

Social Icons Widget

  • RM Warner Law
  • 8283 N Hayden Rd Ste. 229, Scottsdale,
    AZ 85258, United States
  • 1-866-570-8585
  • 866-961-4984
  • admin@rmwarnerlaw.com

© 2020 — RM Warner Law

  • RM Warner Instagram
  • Blog
  • Terms of Service
Prev Next