Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

allegations,  these  platforms  appear  to  transmit  most  con-
tent without inspecting it. 

The mere creation of those platforms, however, is not cul-
pable.  To be sure, it might be that bad actors like ISIS are
able to use platforms like defendants’ for illegal—and some-
times  terrible—ends.    But  the  same  could  be  said  of  cell 
phones, email, or the internet generally.  Yet, we generally 
do not think that internet or cell service providers incur cul-
pability  merely  for  providing  their  services  to  the  public 
writ large.  Nor do we think that such providers would nor-
mally be described as aiding and abetting, for example, il-
legal drug deals brokered over cell phones—even if the pro-
vider’s conference-call or video-call features made the sale 
easier.  See  Doe  v.  GTE  Corp.,  347  F. 3d  655,  659  (CA7 
2003).

To be sure, plaintiffs assert that defendants’ “recommen-
dation” algorithms go beyond passive aid and constitute ac-
tive,  substantial  assistance.  We  disagree.  By  plaintiffs’
own telling, their claim is based on defendants’ “provision 
of  the  infrastructure  which  provides  material  support  to
ISIS.”  App. 53.  Viewed properly, defendants’ “recommen-
dation” algorithms are merely part of that infrastructure.
All the content on their platforms is filtered through these
algorithms, which allegedly sort the content by information
and inputs provided by users and found in the content itself. 
As presented here, the algorithms appear agnostic as to the 
nature  of  the  content,  matching  any  content  (including
ISIS’ content) with any user who is more likely to view that 
content.  The fact that these algorithms matched some ISIS
content with some users thus does not convert defendants’ 
passive assistance into active abetting.  Once the platform
and sorting-tool algorithms were up and running, defend-
ants at most allegedly stood back and watched; they are not 
alleged  to  have  taken  any  further  action  with  respect  to 
ISIS. 

At bottom, then, the claim here rests less on affirmative