Lexplug logoLexplug

Marshall's Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
925 F.3d 1263 (2019)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an interactive computer service from liability for publishing information provided by a third party, even when the service uses a neutral, automated algorithm to translate that third-party information into a different format, such as a map pinpoint.


Facts:

  • "Scam" locksmiths create numerous websites with false information, including fictitious addresses and local-area phone numbers, to misrepresent themselves as local businesses.
  • Consumers searching for locksmiths online are often directed to these scam locksmiths through the search engines operated by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!.
  • The defendant search engines publish the scam locksmiths' websites in search results.
  • The search engines also translate location information from the scam websites, such as street addresses or area codes, into map pinpoints that are displayed to consumers.
  • Fourteen legitimate locksmith companies (the plaintiffs) suffered significant economic losses due to competition from these scam locksmiths appearing prominently in search results.
  • The plaintiffs allege the defendants deliberately populate their search results with inaccurate listings to induce both legitimate and scam locksmiths to pay for advertising.

Procedural Posture:

  • Fourteen locksmith companies filed an amended complaint against Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp., and Yahoo!, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  • The complaint alleged violations of the Lanham Act and Sherman Act, as well as several state-law claims.
  • The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
  • The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that seven of the eight counts were barred by Section 230 immunity.
  • The plaintiffs, the locksmith companies, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Locked

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 of the Communications Decency Act immunize interactive computer services, like search engines, from liability when they use neutral, automated algorithms to translate third-party location information into map pinpoints and other search results?


Opinions:

Majority - Garland, Chief Judge

Yes. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes the search engines because their actions do not make them the 'creator or developer' of the fraudulent information. The court's reasoning relies on a three-part analysis of the content at issue. First, simply republishing the scam locksmiths' websites is the exact conduct Section 230 was designed to protect, and the defendants' knowledge of the information's falsity is irrelevant. Second, generating 'enhanced' content like map pinpoints from third-party data does not strip the defendants of immunity because they use a 'neutral means'—an automated algorithm—to translate the information. The court found that the plaintiffs' own allegation that the scammers 'tricked' the algorithm demonstrates its neutrality, as it processes both legitimate and scam information in the same manner. Third, the plaintiffs' claims about 'original content' created by the defendants were either re-characterizations of the protected map pinpoints or were forfeited for not being properly raised and argued on appeal.



Analysis:

This decision significantly reinforces the broad scope of Section 230 immunity for online platforms that use algorithms to organize and present third-party content. By extending protection to the algorithmic translation of data into new formats (like map pinpoints), the court provides a strong shield for search engines and other services against liability for how they display user-generated information. The ruling distinguishes between the neutral, automated presentation of third-party content—which is protected—and the actual fabrication of content, which would not be. This precedent solidifies the principle that as long as a platform's tools for manipulating data are neutral, it will not be treated as the 'information content provider' of the underlying user-generated data, thus influencing how future cases involving algorithmic curation and liability are analyzed.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Marshall's Locksmith Serv. Inc. v. Google, LLC (2019)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"