State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak
Issue
Whether Google acted as a government agent (implicating Fourth Amendment protections) when it scanned user files for CSAM and reported flagged content to law enforcement pursuant to federal reporting requirements.
What Happened
Defendant challenged his child pornography conviction, arguing Google's automated scanning and employee review of his files constituted a government search requiring a warrant. The circuit court denied suppression, holding defendant failed to establish Google acted as a government instrument or agent. The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding Google acted as a private actor when scanning and reporting CSAM, not as a government agent, so the Fourth Amendment did not apply to Google's search or law enforcement's subsequent review of the same files under the private search doctrine. Notably, the circuit court interpreted 47 U.S.C. § 230 as specifically shielding ESPs from liability when they engage in content moderation activities, including affirmative efforts to scan for and report illegal content.
Why It Matters
This case addresses Section 230's role in incentivizing platform content moderation by providing immunity from liability for voluntary scanning and reporting of illegal content. The court's interpretation that Section 230 was designed to encourage ESPs to engage in proactive content moderation—including automated scanning—without fear of liability directly implicates ongoing debates about the scope of Section 230 protections for active versus passive moderation practices and whether such activities transform platforms into "information content providers" or government agents.