My Two Cents: Why all lawyers should be interested in the two "§230" cases before SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court has just heard two cases that may have an impact on the protections covered by §230.

Attorneys whose reputations have been impacted due to "negative" reviews should take note of recent oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court.  This year, SCOTUS has heard oral arguments for two different cases regarding shielding internet companies from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  As Wikipedia informs, "Section 230 has often been called 'The 26 words that made the Internet'".  230 basically "... provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users." But these two cases could chip away at some of these protections, perhaps to the benefit of some attorneys.

The first case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, questions whether a web company like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube can be held liable when a terrorist group uses its services and later causes injury to another.  The other case, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, questions whether web companies can be held liable when their "algorithms," i.e., computer programming, highlight or promote terrorist groups.  While the facts for each case are terrible, and my sympathy goes out to the victims, there could be very interesting results for attorneys and other professionals from these anticipated rulings. 

Should web companies be immune from defamation and Libel suits under §230?

Many web companies provide listings and reviews of professionals.  This can be a great service for the public - for instance, allowing people to find lawyers in their area who practice a particular type of law.  They also provide reviews from their previous clients.  But like anything in the World Wide Web, there can be abuses.

Ideally, we would all get positive reviews!  Of course, we are not perfect, may make some mistakes, and may rightfully earn a negative review.  A negative review can harm your reputation and lower your professional "score" on these websites.  That can be part of doing business.  But nothing stops a crackpot or disgruntled former client from posting inaccurate or unfounded negative reviews.  What do we do then?! 😱

The sites won't provide you with the reviewer's information (other than what is already shown online).  They won't just take it down if you ask them.  And since these sites are just providing unfiltered commentary, they are basically immune from litigation, e.g., libel & defamation, due to §230.  But rulings in Twitter and Gonzalez could remove some of the §230 protections internet companies enjoy today.

Has the internet grown enough? Do the §230 protections web companies need to be reigned in?

Some may say that §230 is outdated.  The law was created nearly 30 years ago in an effort "considered essential to the growth of the Internet through the early part of the 21st century." Today, some in Congress argue (typically depending on whether the member's political party is being allegedly attacked or shielded by the internet) that the protections §230 provides are too broad.  But as both cases appear to acknowledge these companies have some editorial control and do wield these controls, the respective rulings could lead to a path where lawyers and other professionals could sue these internet companies for libel.

If the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a law that "permits 'any national of the United States who is injured by an act of international terrorism to sue anyone who 'aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance' to anyone who commits such an act" to provide an exception to §230, could freedom from unprotected speech, i.e., libel & defamation, serve as means for attorneys to prosecute the internet companies.  Further, if internet companies can be held liable for "unconsciously" promoting terrorist groups through their algorithms, could they be held liable for unwittingly promoting libelous statements?  🧐

In both cases, the Court's decisions could simply be a denial to the plaintiffs, thus keeping the status quo. The Justices seemed hesitant to alter §230 by any means, but if at all, then very narrowly. Any plaintiff-favorable decision could turn §230 into a potential minefield of future (libel?) litigation.  Any dissenting opinions will further clutter this minefield.  Even a simple concurrence supporting the plaintiffs could crack the door for future litigation.  And if nothing happens due to these court decisions, there is always Congress! 🙃

predicting what a supreme Court ruling will be is like reading a fortune cookie! 🥠

Predicting what SCOTUS may rule, let alone interpreting its rulings, can be like interpreting fortune cookies - it can all come down to the perspective of the reader... 🙄

TIP:  If you find an unfavorable review on a review website (not naming names), consider contacting their "help desk" and e-mail them a dispute of the "negative" review.  In your communication, consider asking them for an affidavit from each "negative" reviewer confirming their identity and their statement.  In my review of §230, a host may not be liable for the content provided by their content providers. But unless I am missing something, I do not see where it even suggests that the host is not liable for not confirming the "reviewer" is whom they actually claim to be, e.g., a former customer of yours.  You might actually get them to take it down.  "Google My Business" works differently, and I haven't been able to crack that nut yet.  But when I do, I'll be sure to share!  🤗  If you know, please share it with the blog! 🙏

MTC