335 F. Supp. 3d 1156
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (U.S. nationals) sued Google alleging it provided material support to ISIS by permitting ISIS content on YouTube and (in amended claims) sharing advertising revenue with ISIS; claims invoked the ATA (18 U.S.C. § 2333(a)) and JASTA-aided theories (§ 2333(d)).
- Google moved to dismiss under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), arguing it is immune as an interactive computer service and not an information content provider for ISIS videos.
- Plaintiffs argued JASTA, extraterritoriality, and the criminal-enforcement exception to § 230(e)(1) nullified or limited CDA immunity; they also advanced a revenue-sharing theory that Google financially benefited ISIS.
- The district court previously dismissed an earlier complaint (SAC) and again considered whether § 230 applies, whether JASTA repealed or limited § 230, and whether the ATA claims adequately pleaded proximate cause after Fields.
- The court concluded most claims seek to treat Google as the publisher/speaker of third-party ISIS content and Google is not alleged to have materially developed ISIS content; therefore § 230(c)(1) bars those claims.
- Separately, the court held that the remaining ATA claims (including revenue-sharing theories) failed to allege the direct proximate causation required by the Ninth Circuit in Fields; most claims dismissed with prejudice, revenue-sharing claims given one final chance to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JASTA repealed or limits CDA § 230(c)(1) immunity | JASTA's broad statement of purpose shows Congress intended ATA claims to escape § 230 | § 230 was not expressly or impliedly repealed by JASTA; § 230 still applies | Court rejects plaintiffs; § 230 not repealed by JASTA |
| Whether § 230 applies extraterritorially here | § 230 should not apply outside U.S.; relevant conduct occurred abroad | § 230 focuses on limiting civil liability where suit is filed (domestic focus) | Court finds domestic application; rejects extraterritoriality challenge |
| Whether § 230(e)(1) (criminal-enforcement exception) removes § 230 immunity for private ATA suits | § 230(e)(1) should be read to exclude civil claims enforcing federal criminal statutes like the ATA | § 230(e)(1) does not eliminate § 230(c)(1) immunity for private civil ATA claims | Court rejects plaintiffs; § 230(e)(1) does not bar § 230(c)(1) here |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded proximate cause under ATA § 2333(a) (post-Fields) | Alleged widespread ISIS use of YouTube and alleged revenue sharing made Google's conduct directly related to the Paris attack | Fields requires a direct relationship; mere facilitation, foreseeability, or fungible funding insufficient | Court holds plaintiffs failed to plead the required direct causal link; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (definition of § 230(c)(1) protection and publisher/speaker inquiry)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. Facebook, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (definition of "development" and limits on § 230 immunity)
- Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir.) (ATA § 2333(a) requires a direct relationship for proximate causation)
- Kimzey v. Yelp! Inc., 836 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir.) (republication/distribution of third-party content does not make host an information content provider)
- Jones v. Dirty World Ent. Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (adopting Roommates' material-contribution test)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (context on § 230 policy goals and protection scope)
- LeadClick Media, LLC v. HigherBalance, LLC, 838 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.) (discussion of § 230 reach and publisher-based duties)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (U.S.) (framework for extraterritoriality / statutory focus inquiry)
- Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, 137 S. Ct. 1296 (U.S.) (limits of foreseeability in proximate-cause analysis)