Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

Statement of THOMAS, J. 

targeting and recommending these writings to users . . . Fa-
cebook  is  acting  as  ‘the  publisher  of  . . .  information  pro-
vided by another information content provider.’ ”  Id., at 76– 
77 (Katzmann, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part) (quoting §230(c)(1)). 

Other examples abound.  One court granted immunity on
a design-defect claim concerning a dating application that
allegedly  lacked  basic  safety  features  to  prevent  harass-
ment and impersonation.  Herrick v. Grindr LLC, 765 Fed. 
Appx.  586,  591  (CA2  2019),  cert.  denied,  589  U. S.  —— 
(2019).  Another granted immunity on a claim that a social
media company defectively designed its product by creating 
a  feature  that  encouraged  reckless  driving.  Lemmon  v. 
Snap, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 3d 1103, 1107, 1113 (CD Cal. 2020).
A  common  thread  through  all  these  cases  is  that  the 
plaintiffs were not necessarily trying to hold the defendants 
liable “as the publisher or speaker” of third-party content. 
§230(c)(1).  Nor did their claims seek to hold defendants li-
able for removing content in good faith.  §230(c)(2).  Their 
claims rested instead on alleged product design flaws—that
is,  the  defendant’s  own  misconduct.  Cf.  Accusearch,  570 
F. 3d,  at  1204  (Tymkovich,  J.,  concurring)  (stating  that 
§230 should not apply when the plaintiff sues over a defend-
ant’s  “conduct  rather  than  for  the  content  of  the  infor-
mation”).  Yet courts, filtering their decisions through the 
policy argument that “Section 230(c)(1) should be construed 
broadly,” Force, 934 F. 3d, at 64, give defendants immunity. 

II 
Paring back the sweeping immunity courts have read into
§230  would  not  necessarily  render  defendants  liable  for 
online misconduct.  It simply would give plaintiffs a chance 
to raise their claims in the first place.  Plaintiffs still must 
prove  the  merits  of  their  cases,  and  some  claims  will  un-
doubtedly fail.  Moreover, States and the Federal Govern-
ment are free to update their liability laws to make them