112 F.4th 1168
9th Cir.2024Background
- YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging extension for Snapchat that promised users it would unmask and ban users engaged in bullying or harassment.
- Several minors, including the estate of a minor who died by suicide, experienced severe bullying and harassment on YOLO but were unable to identify their harassers.
- Plaintiffs brought a diversity class action, alleging YOLO violated state tort and product liability laws by failing to deliver on its anti-bullying promise.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability.
- On appeal, the court considered whether § 230 bars both product liability and misrepresentation claims against YOLO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 230 CDA Immunity (products) | YOLO’s app is inherently dangerous due to anonymity; ignored suicide risks | § 230 immunizes from liability as a publisher | § 230 bars product liability claims based on third-party content |
| § 230 CDA Immunity (misrep.) | YOLO made actionable promises (unmasking/ban) that plaintiffs relied upon | Claims still seek to treat YOLO as a publisher | § 230 does not bar misrepresentation claims based on promises |
| Products Liability: Design Defect | Anonymity feature itself was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous | Anonymity is widespread, not inherently dangerous | App not inherently dangerous; claim attempts to regulate speech |
| Misrepresentation | YOLO’s public representations created actionable duties upon which users relied | Statements were not actual promises or relied upon | Claims may proceed as § 230 does not preclude liability for promises |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes publisher liability from promissory/contractual liability; promise to act can create actionable duty not barred by § 230)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (failure to warn of specific external danger was actionable, not barred by § 230)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (immunity does not apply if platform is responsible for creation/development of illegal content)
- Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) (negligent product design claims not always barred by § 230 if not based on third-party content)