MAYNARD Et Al. v. SNAPCHAT, INC.
346 Ga. App. 131
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- On Sept. 10, 2015, a high‑speed collision occurred; Wentworth Maynard suffered permanent brain damage. A passenger (McCarty) stated the driver (McGee) was looking at a phone showing a Snapchat Speed Filter that displayed speed reaching 113 mph while seeking to post to Snapchat.
- The Maynards sued McGee and Snapchat, alleging negligence and failure to warn: Snapchat’s Speed Filter encouraged and facilitated excessive speeding.
- The complaint does not allege that McGee actually posted or uploaded a Snap using the Speed Filter before the crash.
- Snapchat moved to dismiss, arguing it is immune under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as a publisher/speaker of third‑party content; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding CDA immunity did not apply because the claim targeted Snapchat’s own product/design (the Speed Filter) and failure to warn, not the publication of any third‑party content; the case was remanded for further proceedings on other contested defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA §230(c)(1) immunizes Snapchat from negligence claims tied to the Speed Filter | Maynard: Claim targets Snapchat’s own negligent design/failure to warn (product feature), not publication of third‑party content | Snapchat: CDA bars claims that derive from its role as publisher/speaker of user‑related content; immunity applies even if no post was alleged | Court: CDA immunity does not apply because no third‑party content was published; plaintiffs seek liability for Snapchat’s own conduct in creating/marketing the Speed Filter |
| Whether the complaint treats Snapchat as a publisher/speaker of third‑party content | Maynard: No — claim is about creation, design, maintenance, and warnings for the Speed Filter, not about publishing user posts | Snapchat: Even duties tied to user interactions derive from publisher status and are barred by §230 | Court: The complaint does not seek to hold Snapchat liable as publisher/speaker because no Snap was posted; §230 inapplicable on that ground |
| Whether the appellate court should affirm on alternative grounds (failure to state a claim; lack of personal jurisdiction) | Maynard: These defenses were not decided below and require fact development | Snapchat: Appeal can be affirmed on any correct ground, including those not decided by the trial court | Court: Declined to decide alternative grounds; remanded so trial court can address them in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (CDA provides immunity for liability based on third‑party content)
- Jones v. Dirty World Ent. Recordings LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (§230 protects providers from liability for displaying content created by others)
- Internet Brands, Inc. v. Jape, 328 Ga. App. 272 (Ga. Ct. App.) (three‑element test for §230(c)(1) immunity in Georgia)
- Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (website rules facilitating third‑party postings treated as publisher conduct subject to §230 analysis)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (§230 shields publication decisions—editing, removing, posting—relating to third‑party content)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.) (§230 did not bar negligent‑failure‑to‑warn claim grounded in defendant’s own conduct, not publication of third‑party content)