Section 230 Precludes Suit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that Facebook is immune in a suit brought by the daughter of the murdered Reverend Pinckney that contended that the platform was liable for radicalizing Dylann Roof

In 1996, Congress enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230, commonly known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In Section 230, Congress provided interactive computer services broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold those companies liable for publishing information provided by third parties. Plaintiff-Appellant M.P. challenges the breadth of this immunity provision, asserting claims of strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Carolina law. In these claims, she seeks to hold Facebook, an interactive computer service, liable for damages allegedly caused by a defective product, namely, Facebook’s algorithm that recommends third-party content to users. M.P. contends that Facebook explicitly designed its algorithm to recommend harmful content, a design choice that she alleges led to radicalization and offline violence committed against her father…

As stated in the complaint, in June 2015, Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Among the dead was M.P.’s father, Reverend Clementa Pinckney. M.P. was present when her father was murdered.

M.P. later filed suit against Defendant-Appellee Meta Platforms, Inc. and five of its subsidiaries (collectively, Facebook) asserting that they were civilly liable for damages caused by Roof’s crimes. M.P. alleges in her complaint that Roof was “radicalized online by white supremacist propaganda that was directed to him by the Defendants.” She also asserts that, in 2012, when Roof “looked to Google in search of answers for ‘black on white crime,’” Google directed him “to a website run by a White nationalist group called the Council of Conservative Citizens.” M.P. avers that this Google search marked the beginning of Roof’s radicalization process.

Held

We recognize that there is a growing body of literature exploring the various harms resulting from the ongoing evolution of social media companies, like Facebook, which have expanded their reach under the protective shield of Section 230. But the conclusions reached by these authors cannot serve as a basis for us to restrict the application of Section 230. We are not free to disregard Section 230 or to limit its application based on our own assessment of the merits of its expansive reach. The question whether, and to what extent, Section 230 should be modified is a question for Congress, not for judges.

In sum, we conclude that M.P.’s state tort claims seek to hold Facebook “responsible ‘as the publisher or speaker of [third-party] information.’” Henderson, 53 F.4th at 119. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in holding that these state tort claims are precluded by Section 230.

But even if Section 230 did not immunize Facebook from M.P.’s state tort claims, all her claims under South Carolina law would fail for the additional reason that M.P. did not plausibly allege under South Carolina law the required element of proximate causation. All three state tort claims, namely, strict products liability, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, require that a plaintiff plausibly allege proximate causation.

RUSHING, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, as interpreted by this Court, grants broad immunity to interactive computer services for publishing content provided by others. I agree with the majority that we are not free to disregard or modify Section 230 “based on our own assessment of the merits of its expansive reach.” Supra, at 15. But I disagree with the majority about how far Section 230’s protection extends. In her complaint, M.P. alleges that Facebook acted culpably by inundating her father’s murderer, Dylann Roof, with violent racist content that radicalized him, resulting in his act of violence. Under our precedent, Section 230 protects Facebook from liability for those editorial decisions, as the majority correctly concludes. But M.P. also alleges that Facebook culpably recommended that Roof join extremist groups on Facebook, where his radical views were cultivated. Recommending that a user join a group, connect with another user, or attend an event is Facebook’s own speech, for which it can be held liable, even under this Court’s precedent. Unlike the majority, I would reverse the district court’s dismissal of M.P. negligence claims on Section 230 grounds and remand her claims regarding Facebook’s own conduct, including its group recommendations, for further proceedings.

(Mike Frisch)