# Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Gonzalez v. Google LLC (Docket 21–1333) is a pending case at the Supreme Court of the United States which deals with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for Internet service providers, in dealing with terrorism-related content posted by users and hosted on their servers. The case was granted certiorari alongside another Section 230 and terrorism-related case, Twitter.

## Quotes

* In February, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, and its decision could radically alter the way that Americans use the internet.
** Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google General Counsel Gonzalez v Google and the future of an open, free and safe internet (Jan 12, 2023)
* The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Gonzalez v. Google — the first time the justices have taken up the fate of social media’s content immunity granted under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. At stake: whether Google is exempt from content liability after YouTube, its subsidiary, allegedly promoted terrorist videos through its algorithm.
** Marc Ginsberg, Former Amb according to Opinion: The Supreme Court could end social media companies’ charade (feb. 23, 2023)
* Petitioners respectfully pray that this Court grant a writ of certiorari to review the judgment and opinion of the United States Court of Appeals entered on June 22, 2021.
** Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. In The Supreme Court of the United States REYNALDO GONZALEZ, et al., Petitioners, v. GOOGLE LLC, Respondent (Feb 07 2023)
* Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields providers of "interactive computer service[s]," including websites, from claims that seek to treat the provider "as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
    The question presented is: Whether a claim seeks to treat an interactive computer service provider as a “publisher,” and is thus barred by section 230, when the claim targets the provider’s display of third-party content of potential interest to individual users.
   * GOOGLE LLC, RESPONDENT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
* However, in some sense, that may be a blessing in disguise. At least to the extent it motivates Congress to finally address, in a bipartisan way, the defects that the past quarter century of experience has revealed.
** Doug Mirell, a Section 230 expert according to What we learned from two rounds of Supreme Court arguments over internet liability (February 23, 2023, 12:06 PM PST) by Alexis Keenan
* [Section 230] shelters more activity than Congress envisioned it would.
** w:US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit according to How the death of an American in the 2015 Paris attacks could change internet law By Jonny Walfisz (Updated: 21 February 2023)
* The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Gonzalez v. Google — the first time the justices have taken up the fate of social media’s content immunity granted under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. At stake: whether Google is exempt from content liability after YouTube, its subsidiary, allegedly promoted terrorist videos through its algorithm.
** Marc Ginsberg in Opinion: The Supreme Court could end social media companies’ charade (feb. 23, 2023)

## External links

* scotusblog