Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

and  use  history.  And,  like  most  other  content,  advertise-
ments were displayed with ISIS’ messages, posts, and vid-
eos based on information about the viewer and the content 
being  viewed.  Unlike  most  other  content,  however,  ISIS’ 
videos  and  messages  celebrated  terrorism  and  recruited 
new  terrorists.    For  example,  ISIS  uploaded  videos  that
fundraised for weapons of terror and that showed brutal ex-
ecutions of soldiers and civilians alike.  And plaintiffs allege
that these platforms have been crucial to ISIS’ growth, al-
lowing it to reach new audiences, gain new members, and 
spread its message of terror. 

Plaintiffs  also  allege  that  defendants  have  known  that
ISIS  has  used  their  platforms  for  years.  Yet,  plaintiffs
claim  that  defendants  have  failed  to  detect  and  remove  a 
substantial  number  of  ISIS-related  accounts,  posts,  and 
videos.  (For example, plaintiffs aver that defendants “have 
failed to implement . . . a basic account detection methodol-
ogy”  to  prevent  ISIS  supporters  from  generating  multiple 
accounts on their platforms.  App. 150.)  Accordingly, plain-
tiffs  assert  that  defendants  aided  and  abetted  ISIS  by
knowingly  allowing  ISIS  and  its  supporters  to  use  their 
platforms  and  benefit  from  their  “recommendation”  algo-
rithms,  enabling  ISIS  to  connect  with  the  broader  public,
fundraise, and radicalize new recruits.  And, in the process,
defendants allegedly have profited from the advertisements 
placed on ISIS’ tweets, posts, and videos. 

Plaintiffs  also  provide  a  set  of  allegations  specific  to 
Google.  According  to  plaintiffs,  Google  has  established  a 
system that shares revenue gained from certain advertise-
ments  on  YouTube  with  users  who  posted  the  videos
watched  with the advertisement.  As part of that system,
Google allegedly reviews and approves certain videos before 
Google permits ads to accompany that video.  Plaintiffs al-
lege that Google has reviewed and approved at least some 
ISIS  videos  under  that  system,  thereby  sharing  some
amount of revenue with ISIS.