No. The special internet law doesn't protect Snapchat in this case. The court explained that the law is for protecting companies from what their users say or post. This lawsuit isn't about a post; it's about Snapchat's own choice to design a feature that the family claims encourages dangerous speeding. Since the family is suing Snapchat for its own product design, not for a user's post, the company must face the lawsuit.

No, the law shouldn't protect Snapchat from being sued for making the Speed Filter. The Maynards aren't trying to sue Snapchat for something someone else posted. They're suing because they think Snapchat made a feature that encourages people to drive too fast, which isn't safe. The driver hadn't even posted anything on Snapchat before the crash happened. Since this is about Snapchat's own actions, not about something a user posted, the law doesn't protect them. The case will go back to the lower court so they can look more at whether Snapchat should be held responsible for making the Speed Filter.

Because the Parents' claim does not seek to hold Snap responsible as a publisher or speaker, but merely "seek [s] to hold Snapchat liable for its own conduct, principally for the creation of the Speed Filter," § 230 (c)(1) immunity is unavailable.

Under these circumstances, we exercise our discretion to vacate the trial court's order to the extent that it dismissed Blau's declaratory judgment claim and remand for the court to consider in the first instance the alternative argument raised by the GDOC as to why Blau failed to state a claim for declaratory relief.

—reversing the lower court and declining to extend immunity on grounds that the case did not depend on publication of third-party content

—declining to affirm the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under the "right for any reason" rationale when issues were not ruled upon below and "require [d] a review of issues within the trial court's discretion

In that action, the Maynards sued McGee and Snapchat, Inc., alleging that McGee was driving at an excessive speed as a result of her use of the Snapchat Speed Filter at the time of the collision

Similarly, Snapchat was held liable for applying a graphic filter over a user' s photo, creating something new

Given that the parties have presented multiple and separate grounds for summary judgment, many of which were stridently contested below, we decline to address the additional arguments which Kroger and Norred & Associates raise on appeal.

—of CDA 230 (c)(1), the Ninth Circuit has set forth—and numerous other federal and state courts have applied—a three-element test to determine whether a defendant is immunized: CDA 230 (c)(1) provides immunity to "(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) …

First, Section 230' s ambiguity on platforms' specific rights and duties under the immunity clause continues to sow confusion and lead to inconsistent results

No. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity because the Maynards' claim is not based on Snapchat's role as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. The court reasoned that CDA immunity is intended to protect providers from liability for information originating with a third-party user. Here, the Maynards' complaint does not seek to hold Snapchat liable for publishing a post made by McGee. In fact, no content was published before the accident. Instead, the claim targets Snapchat's own conduct in the alleged negligent creation, design, and maintenance of the Speed Filter, which they claim encourages dangerous driving. The court distinguished this case from precedents where immunity was granted, noting that in those cases, the harm was caused by the publication of third-party content (e.g., fraudulent ads, fake profiles, terrorist accounts), whereas here, the alleged harm stems from the design of the product itself, independent of any publication.

No, the Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to Snapchat for the creation and design of its Speed Filter feature because the Maynards' claim does not seek to hold Snapchat liable as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. Instead, the Maynards seek to hold Snapchat liable for its own conduct, particularly for the creation of the Speed Filter and its failure to warn users that the Speed Filter could encourage speeding and unsafe driving practices. The Maynards do not allege that McGee uploaded or posted a Snap using the Speed Filter before the accident occurred. Because there was no third-party user content published in this case, CDA immunity does not apply. The case is remanded to the trial court to consider the Maynards' negligence claims and Snapchat's potential liability for creating a feature that may encourage dangerous behavior.

MAYNARD Et Al. v. SNAPCHAT, INC.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot