As part of the class we went over a variety of law case studies. The professor had a bit of a schtick or joke where he would ask "can they sue?"--and the answer was always yes. There was no plausible case you could not litigate. The followup question was always where the details were. "Will this case get thrown out?" or "Will they win" was usually where the discussion occurred. The reason for that, is in US law, the bar is incredibly low for being able to litigate a case.
This case is no different. According to the reversal[0], effectively the court found it's plausible that the known reward system snapchat has (popularity, endorphins, whatever you want to call it) in combination with the speed filter, is not unrelated to the accident. That's all they said, and I believe that's the correct decision--they aren't saying Snap is to blame--just that the very high bar to throw out a case has not been met.
Personally, wouldn't read too much past that. Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.
[0] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20...
If it is settled with a payout, then it has succeeded.
Edit:
Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action:
https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68
https://youtu.be/SUcvsHxaX_o?t=100
You'll note that neither of them have any special display for reaching fast speeds (IE "incentivizing" driving over the speed limit), and that the first one even says "Don't snap and drive".
The factual contribution is a question for trial; the question here was whether Snapchat was legally immune from suit through CDA section 230, even though the material alleged to be the source of liability was first-party content.
I cannot help the feel that this "social incentive" argument is the adult cousin of "but everyone's doing it, mom!".
Even marketing would be tough to catch them on as how many grocery stores in college towns sell beer bongs right next to beer displays that are a few feet away from liquor. At what point would they be liable? Beer bong directly adjacent to bottles of JD/ shrink-wrapped with bottle/ buy 2 bottles of JD get a beer bong.
> To see a different federal appeals court go the opposite way could create an opening for more cases to challenge tech companies over flawed platform design leading to foreseeable harms, she said.
Article author seems to misunderstand section 230. Section 230 protects against liability for 3rd party content, such as the fake Grindr profile from that case.
I've never used Snapchat, but my understanding is filters are 1st party content: created by Snapchat themselves. That is why this case doesn't get 230 protection.
Edit: commenters below have informed me there are 3rd party filters but the speedometer one is 1st party.
> The panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing on the ground of immunity under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), an amended complaint brought against Snap, Inc., a social media provider. [...] The district court held that the CDA barred the plaintiffs’ claim because it sought to treat Snap, Inc. “as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” [...] 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. [...] The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
So I think the author article is correct that if other courts have been making similar mistakes, this appeals court decision could help.
Not always true w.r.t filters. A majority of the filters that users are shown by default (Dog with floppy ears, pink cat, white cat, face distortion, etc) are first party content created by Snapchat themselves. But there is a "marketplace" where new filters can be created and downloaded that's included with the snapchat application.
This ruling isn't about whether Snap did or didn't play a role: just that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible argument that they played a role, and are entitled to build their case.
By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?
This is the correct decision. If the suit is going to be dismissed, it needs to be dismissed on valid grounds. If there is no valid reason then it must continue towards trial, where it could still fail on the merits.
Here's Texas, for example:
Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.
(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
...
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense;
For example, if Snapchat makes a filter that detects blood and "counts kills" as you stab people, are they not responsible for any actions that result? It sounds like you might claim "no", because "I could kill someone on my own if I wanted".
That’s...debatable, but not the issue raised in this case.
> Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?
This isn’t a criminal charge, so whether or not the act is a crime is mostly irrelevant.
But a speed filter , which outright encourages breaking traffic laws is a whole different story. Who ever greenlit this trash needs to be put in jail.
Should we jail the person that invented the speedometer as well?
To anyone with a passing acquaintance with the male teenage mind, it is entirely predictable what anything that captures your current speed and broadcasts it to your friends will encourage.
Perhaps modern social media isn't coercing kids in to crimes quite as overtly, but they are absolutely using their billion dollar budgets to manipulate our children in any way they conceivably can. And you want to blame the parents for what happens?
This is the same nonsense that has trained people (and I've definitely done it myself) to write "I'm not a lawyer" and "This is not financial advice" when posting online - as if common sense no longer applies to people reading random internet comments.
The killer wore a boxing glove? Sue the manufacturer.
Knives, guns...
