The YOLO Remand Shows Why the 9th Circuit Should Stop Carving Up Section 230
The Ninth Circuit's remand of the YOLO case raises concerns about the application of Section 230. Plaintiffs claim that YOLO's statements about content moderation were misleading, yet the court questions the validity of these claims. The case highlights ongoing issues with promise-based claims and the implications for First Amendment protections in content moderation.
- ▪The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that Section 230 does not apply to promise-based claims, allowing plaintiffs to proceed against YOLO.
- ▪The district court has rejected a default judgment in the case, citing numerous problems with class formation and the merits of the claims.
- ▪The court expressed skepticism about whether YOLO's statements constituted enforceable promises or mere puffery.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
This is the remand of the troubling Ninth Circuit Section 230 decision in Bride v. YOLO. As you may recall, the plaintiffs claims that YOLO made statements about its content moderation and the safety of its environment that the plaintiffs believe were not true; and based on that, YOLO should be liable for users’ physical and emotional harms. In its prior ruling, the Ninth Circuit said that Section 230 doesn’t apply to promise-based claims. That ruling allowed the plaintiffs to proceed against YOLO even though YOLO’s challenged statements clearly never made any enforceable promises. YOLO stopped paying its lawyers and stopped fighting in court, so it defaulted in the case.
…
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
