Carly Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.
995 F.3d 1085
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Three young men died in a high-speed crash after one used Snapchat’s "Speed Filter" shortly before the collision; the Parents allege the app encouraged speeding.
- Plaintiffs allege Snapchat’s Speed Filter plus an internal reward/incentive system incentivized users to record and share >100 MPH snaps.
- Parents claim Snap negligently designed Snapchat (a products-liability/negligent-design theory), that Snap knew or should have known of the danger, and failed to mitigate it.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), holding the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)) barred the suit; it did not decide causation and denied further amendment.
- Ninth Circuit reviews de novo, accepts the complaint’s allegations as true, and considers whether § 230(c)(1) bars the negligent-design claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 230(c)(1) immunizes Snap from a negligent-design claim | The Parents say the claim targets Snap’s product design (Speed Filter + reward system), not Snap’s role as a publisher | Snap says § 230 shields it because the case depends on user-generated content and publishing that content | § 230(c)(1) does not bar the suit; negligent-design claim is not a publisher-based claim |
| Whether the claim seeks to treat Snap as a "publisher or speaker" of third-party content | Parents: duty alleged arises from product design, not editorial/publishing decisions | Snap: its transmission/publishing of snaps is a but-for cause and implicates publisher duties | Court: duty alleged springs from product-manufacturer responsibilities, not publisher duties; claim does not treat Snap as publisher |
| Whether the claim rests on "information provided by another information content provider" | Parents: claim faults Snap’s own features, not third-party content; the Speed Filter and reward system are Snap-created | Snap: the harm allegedly results from user content and the sharing of speed snaps | Court: claim is premised on Snap’s own acts (design/features), not on information provided by third parties; § 230(c)(1) inapplicable |
| Whether dismissal could be affirmed for failure to plead causation | Parents: allege facts (including the snap) supporting causation; request to litigate causation on remand | Snap: amended complaint fails to plead legal causation adequately | Court declines to decide causation now; remands for further proceedings so district court may address causation and any choice-of-law issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (establishes three-part test for § 230(c)(1) immunity)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (§ 230 does not protect defendants for their own conduct in creating or developing content or features)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes publisher-based liability from independent duties and cautions against treating but-for publishing as dispositive)
- Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc., 934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) (procedural standard for § 230 analysis on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016) (addresses when platform features make a defendant responsible for developing third-party content)
- HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (discusses § 230’s purpose and scope)
- Maynard v. Snapchat, Inc., 816 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018) (state-court decision treating a negligent-design theory against Snapchat as not purely publisher-based)