|
||
|
First Amendment · Section 230 · AI Liability Nerdy Skynet! May 29, 2026 |
||
|
Coverage: 2026-05-26 through 2026-05-29 · 1 new development this period |
||
|
||
|
Eric Goldman (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) |
||
|
Ninth Circuit Panel Goes Out of Its Way to Question Section 230–Doe v. Meta Eric Goldman (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) · 2026-05-26 CommentaryEric Goldman critically analyzes a Ninth Circuit panel opinion in Doe v. Meta — arising from Facebook's alleged algorithmic amplification of anti-Rohingya hate content in Myanmar — in which the panel sua sponte raised and analyzed Section 230 despite the district court having dismissed the case solely on statute of limitations grounds without mentioning Section 230 at all. Goldman argues this constitutes judicial activism, flags the panel's conflicts-of-laws analysis confirming Section 230 applies even when plaintiffs are foreign and harms occurred abroad, and previews the panel's substantive treatment of product-design workaround arguments — concluding that the alleged defects relate to Facebook's core publishing functions and are therefore within Section 230's scope. The case is significant for the newsletter because it addresses the algorithmic amplification immunity question (the Gonzalez open issue), the product-design carve-out theory, and the extraterritorial reach of Section 230. Key point: The Ninth Circuit panel's decision to volunteer Section 230 analysis — rejecting plaintiffs' product-design framing of Facebook's algorithmic amplification of rage content as falling within Section 230's publisher immunity — represents a potentially significant (if procedurally irregular) ruling on the scope of Section 230 immunity for recommendation-driven harms. |
||
|
Sources: CourtListener API ·
All 13 federal circuit RSS feeds ·
All 50 state supreme courts + intermediate appellate courts (8 states)
via Justia ·
Eric Goldman · Techdirt |