Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

MALWAREBYTES, INC. v. ENIGMA SOFTWARE 
GROUP USA, LLC 
Statement of THOMAS, J. 

The decision is one of the few where courts have relied on 
purpose and policy to deny immunity under §230.  But the 
court’s  decision  to  stress  purpose  and  policy  is  familiar.
Courts have long emphasized nontextual arguments when
interpreting §230, leaving questionable precedent in their 
wake. 

I agree with the Court’s decision not to take up this case.
I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should 
consider  whether  the  text  of  this  increasingly  important
statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed 
by Internet platforms. 

I 

Enacted  at  the  dawn  of  the  dot-com  era,  §230  contains 
two  subsections  that  protect  computer  service  providers 
from  some  civil  and  criminal  claims.    The  first  is  defini-
tional.  It states, “No provider or user of an interactive com-
puter service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any  information  provided  by  another  information  content 
provider.”  §230(c)(1).  This provision ensures that a com-
pany (like an e-mail provider) can host and transmit third-
party content without subjecting itself to the liability that 
sometimes attaches to the publisher or speaker of unlawful 
content.  The  second subsection  provides  direct  immunity
from some civil liability.  It states that no computer service 
provider “shall be held liable” for (A) good-faith acts to re-
strict  access  to,  or  remove,  certain  types  of  objectionable 
content;  or  (B)  giving  consumers  tools  to  filter  the  same
types of content.  §230(c)(2).  This limited protection enables
companies  to  create  community  guidelines  and  remove 
harmful content without worrying about legal reprisal. 

Congress  enacted  this  statute  against  specific  back-
ground legal principles.  See Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 
543 U. S. 481, 487 (2005) (interpreting a law by looking to
the “backdrop against which Congress” acted).  Tradition-
ally, laws governing illegal content distinguished between