|
Section 230 Ends Lawsuit by Twitter Premium Subscriber–Taddeo-Waite v. X
Eric Goldman (Technology & Marketing Law Blog)
· 2026-05-23
Commentary
A Texas federal court granted Section 230 immunity to X Corp. on three distinct claims: (1) failure to remove a third-party post, (2) algorithmic amplification of that post, and (3) alleged suppression of the plaintiff's own posts despite his paid subscription. The court's algorithmic amplification ruling squarely rejects "algorithmic exceptionalism," holding that encoding human editorial judgment into automated systems does not strip a platform of § 230 immunity — directly engaging the open Gonzalez question. Goldman also flags a circuit-conflict dimension: the court declined to apply the Ninth Circuit's Calise/YOLO framework treating enforceable contractual promises as potential § 230 exceptions, illustrating ongoing lower-court divergence on the Barnes v. Yahoo promissory-estoppel issue.
Key point: The court's holding that algorithmic amplification of third-party content is immune publisher activity under § 230 — regardless of whether curation is human or machine-encoded — represents a significant rejection of algorithmic exceptionalism and directly bears on the unresolved Gonzalez question about recommendation-algorithm immunity.
Read post →
|