At the moment, Section 230 grants internet platforms complete immunity from any content that comes from a third party, even if the website promotes it as a recommendation. Judges expressed surprise at the extent to which tech companies are exempt from liability under Section 230 and asked about its scope.
The landmark case that could change the internet by removing tech companies’ decades-old legal protections was heard on Wednesday by the US Supreme Court. However, there was no indication that a clear majority would choose to change the law.

In a two-and-a-half-hour session, the nine justices asked questions aimed at better understanding the so-called Section 230 law, which was enacted in 1996, prior to Google’s creation and the beginning of the internet.

The justices did admit that the legal shield probably wasn’t working anymore because the internet has changed a lot since the law was written, but they also said that they might not be the best people to fix it.
Justice Elena Kagan referred to the complexity of the case before them by saying, “We’re in a predicament here because this is a statute that was written at a different time when the internet was completely different.”

As a court, we really do not know anything about these matters. She continued, “These are not the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

Currently, Section 230 grants internet platforms complete immunity from any content that comes from a third party—especially important in this case—even if the content is promoted by the website as a recommendation.

The case specifically targets YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, which determines which videos a user might want to watch next based on their profile and previous choices.

The family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American exchange student who was one of the 130 people killed in the attacks in Paris in November 2015, is the plaintiff in the case.

Her family believes that YouTube, which is owned by Google, participated in the violence by recommending videos from the Islamic State jihadist group to users.

According to Eric Schnapper, the Gonzalez family’s attorney, “the problem is that when you click on one video, and you pick that one, YouTube will automatically keep sending you more videos, which you haven’t asked for.”

Some justices were surprised by how far the immunity for tech companies goes, including on recommendations, and asked questions about the scope of Section 230.

“The current issue is whether or not we can be sued for making recommendations. That simply isn’t what the statute was (intended for),” said the court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Crash” the internet The justices were also worried that changing the rules would lead to a lot of lawsuits and make it much harder to do business online.

Concerns that rethinking Section 230 would lead to “economic dislocation” and “really crash the digital economy with all sorts of effects on workers and consumers” were brought up by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Justice Samuel Alito inquired if Google would “collapse or the internet be destroyed if YouTube and therefore Google were potentially liable for posting and refusing to take down videos that it knows are defamatory and false” in the event that Google were held liable.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Schnapper, insisted that the impact would be limited due to the limited “types of circumstance” under which a recommendation could be sued.

The tech industry is shaking with fear at the thought of the Supreme Court even tinkering with Section 230, and Google’s lawyer has warned of serious consequences.

Attorney Lisa Blatt advised the justices, “You know, basically you take down anything that anyone might object to, and then you basically have… The Truman Show versus a horror show.”

She went on to say, “You would have only anemic, cartoon-like stuff… or else you just have garbage on the internet, and the law would not have achieved its purpose.”

The same judges will then look at a case that is very similar to this one, but it involves Twitter and asks if internet platforms can be found guilty of helping terrorists.

Experts believe that the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on this case may indicate a willingness to alter the landmark law, as it does not hear the vast majority of cases.

Given the stakes, Google stated that it was “proud” to present its case to the court.

Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google’s General Counsel, added, “Eroding these protections would fundamentally change how the internet works, making it less open, less safe, and less helpful.”

By June 30, a decision on both cases is anticipated.