Ninth Circuit Panel Goes Out of Its Way to Question Section 230–DOE vs. Meta
The Ninth Circuit panel has raised questions about Section 230 in a case involving Facebook's role in the Rohingya attacks in Myanmar. The lower court dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds without addressing Section 230, yet the Ninth Circuit chose to engage with it. This decision has sparked concerns about judicial activism and the panel's motivations for discussing Section 230.
- ▪The plaintiffs sued Facebook for its alleged role in the genocidal attacks on the Rohingya minority in Myanmar.
- ▪The lower court dismissed the case based solely on statute of limitations without mentioning Section 230.
- ▪The Ninth Circuit panel requested supplemental briefings on Section 230 and conducted its own analysis despite the lower court's ruling.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
[I’ve been sitting on this ruling for almost a month because blog posts like this are time-consuming and emotionally draining to write. It may not look it, but this post took about 6 hours to write.] This case involves a terrible tragedy: genocidal violent attacks on the Rohingya minority in Myanmar at the beginning of the 2010s. The plaintiffs sued Facebook for its role in the attacks, such as its alleged algorithmic turbocharging of rage content posted by its users. Despite the tragedy, the facts sound like a straightforward Section 230 situation. However, the lower court didn’t rely on Section 230 to dismiss the complaint. Indeed, Section 230 isn’t mentioned a single time in the district court dismissal, part of why I never blogged that opinion.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Technology & Marketing Law Blog
