Carly Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.
Not yet reported (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not immunize an interactive computer service provider from a negligent design claim when the claim treats the provider as a product manufacturer for its own conduct in designing a feature that allegedly encourages dangerous behavior, rather than as a publisher of third-party content.
Facts:
- On May 28, 2017, Jason Davis (age 17), Hunter Morby (age 17), and Landen Brown (age 20) were driving in Walworth County, Wisconsin.
- The boys' car began to speed, reaching as fast as 123 MPH, before running off the road at approximately 113 MPH and crashing into a tree, resulting in the deaths of all three boys.
- Minutes before the fatal accident, Landen Brown opened the Snapchat application to document how fast they were going using the app's 'Speed Filter'.
- Snapchat's design includes a 'Speed Filter' that allows users to record their real-life speed and an incentive system that rewards users with 'trophies, streaks, and social recognitions' based on the snaps they send.
- Many Snapchat users suspected, and Snap, Inc. allegedly knew, that the app rewarded users for 'recording a 100-MPH or faster snap' using the Speed Filter, thereby incentivizing dangerous speeding.
- Prior to the accident, Snap, Inc. was aware of news articles, an online petition, and at least three other accidents linked to Snapchat users' pursuit of high-speed snaps, but its warnings against using the Speed Filter while driving proved ineffective.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 23, 2019, Carly Lemmon, Michael Morby, Samantha Brown, and Marlo Brown (the Parents) filed a negligent design lawsuit against Snap, Inc. in a federal district court.
- Snap, Inc. moved to dismiss the Parents' initial complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing both failure to state a plausible negligence claim and immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
- The district court dismissed the initial complaint for failure to allege a causal connection and for being unclear whether the claim was barred by the CDA, but granted leave to amend.
- On November 18, 2019, the Parents filed an amended complaint.
- Snap, Inc. again moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the same grounds.
- The district court granted Snap, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint solely on the basis of immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), without addressing the causation argument or granting further leave to amend.
- A final judgment was entered by the district court on February 25, 2020.
- The Parents (Plaintiffs-Appellants) filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Snap, Inc. as the Defendant-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunize Snap, Inc. from a negligent design claim alleging that the design of its Snapchat application and its features, like the Speed Filter and reward system, encouraged users to drive at dangerous speeds, leading to the deaths of users?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Wardlaw
No, Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) does not immunize Snap, Inc. from a negligent design claim because the Parents' claim neither treats Snap as a 'publisher or speaker' nor relies on 'information provided by another information content provider.' The court applied the three-prong test from Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009). First, the parties did not dispute that Snap, Inc. is an interactive computer service provider, satisfying the first prong. Second, the court determined that the Parents' claim did not treat Snap, Inc. as a 'publisher or speaker.' The lawsuit focuses on Snap's 'unreasonable and negligent' design decisions regarding Snapchat, its Speed Filter, and its incentive system, which allegedly worked together to entice young users to drive at dangerous speeds. This framed Snap as a 'products manufacturer' accused of negligently designing a product (Snapchat) with a defect (the interplay between its reward system and the Speed Filter), a common products liability tort. The duty Snap allegedly violated, to design a reasonably safe product, is distinct from the duties of a publisher (reviewing, editing, deciding whether to publish third-party content), as recognized in Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016). Snap could have satisfied its alleged obligation without altering user-generated content. Third, the court concluded that the claim did not rely on 'information provided by another information content provider.' Snap indisputably designed the Speed Filter and reward system. The Parents' negligent design claim faults Snap solely for Snapchat's architecture, contending these features encouraged dangerous speeds, not for publishing Landen's specific snap or any other user-generated content. The Parents explicitly stated the danger was the speeding, not the snap message itself. This aligns with Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), which clarified that internet companies are liable for their own creation or development of content. The court rejected arguments that content-neutral tools grant absolute immunity or that the pleading was a creative attempt to circumvent the CDA, finding the claim independent of user-generated content.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of Section 230 immunity, establishing that it does not extend to claims based on a platform provider's own design and architecture decisions that allegedly create an unreasonable risk of harm. The ruling distinguishes between a platform's role in publishing third-party content (which is immunized) and its role as a product designer responsible for its own features (which is not). This decision could have a profound impact on how social media companies approach product development, potentially forcing them to consider the real-world safety implications of their design choices more rigorously and opening new avenues for product liability litigation against tech platforms.
