A Texas high school student has requested the US Supreme Court to reconsider the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) on the liability of online platforms. Essentially, the case refers to a high school student from Texas who sued the social media company Snapchat after the student's science teacher used the platform to sexually abuse them. However, in 2023, the majority of the judges from the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas declined to review the case on the basis that Snapchat is immune under Section 230 (c) (1) of the CDA, stating that:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

As a result, the student filed a petition with the Supreme Court to revise the scope of that provision as it resulted in the impunity of social media platforms. The petition claims that the case law on the interpretation of that section has resulted in the 'broad immunity' of social media platforms, which sometimes results in websites facilitating human trafficking and sex trafficking. Thus, the petition claims that the 230 Section of the CDA shall be revised in accordance with the Illinois District Court's interpretation, which ruled that:

"Section230(c)(1) is "a definitional clause rather than . . . an immunity from liability."

Why does it matter?

Section 230 (c) (1) of the CDA has raised the question of where the line is drawn between intermediaries' liability and users' responsibility for using online platforms to commit crimes. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision on that matter could set a precedent regarding the liability of intermediaries for third-party content.