Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules
npr.orgThis reminds me of a story from college, regarding a business law class (US laws mostly). This class was interesting for a variety of reasons, but also pretty humorous as the professor was a full time lawyer, and taught the class because he enjoyed educating people. Generally, I've enjoyed the classes most where the professor brought real world experience to the podium and this class fit that bill perfectly.
As part of the class we went over a variety of law case studies. The professor had a bit of a schtick or joke where he would ask "can they sue?"--and the answer was always yes. There was no plausible case you could not litigate. The followup question was always where the details were. "Will this case get thrown out?" or "Will they win" was usually where the discussion occurred. The reason for that, is in US law, the bar is incredibly low for being able to litigate a case.
This case is no different. According to the reversal[0], effectively the court found it's plausible that the known reward system snapchat has (popularity, endorphins, whatever you want to call it) in combination with the speed filter, is not unrelated to the accident. That's all they said, and I believe that's the correct decision--they aren't saying Snap is to blame--just that the very high bar to throw out a case has not been met.
Personally, wouldn't read too much past that. Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.
[0] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20...
> Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.
If it is settled with a payout, then it has succeeded.
Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation?
Edit:
Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action:
https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68
https://youtu.be/SUcvsHxaX_o?t=100
You'll note that neither of them have any special display for reaching fast speeds (IE "incentivizing" driving over the speed limit), and that the first one even says "Don't snap and drive".
> Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation?
The factual contribution is a question for trial; the question here was whether Snapchat was legally immune from suit through CDA section 230, even though the material alleged to be the source of liability was first-party content.
I suppose that's really all there is to see here; it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
I think if a social media organization encouraged a #highspeedometer hashtag they could also be liable. It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's that Snapchat set up a defacto social incentive for speeding.
IMO this is an inconsistent approach of placing responsability. What about regular people who start viral challenges that might get people killed? Should they also be held responsible? If the answer is no (in the real world, the answer is no), then why should Snapchat should be held accountable?
I cannot help the feel that this "social incentive" argument is the adult cousin of "but everyone's doing it, mom!".
I'm not so sure the real world answer is "no". What are you basing it on? Why are organisations that promote dangerous activities (e.g. paragliding, cycling challenges) asking me to sign liability waivers? I think this is evidence against your claim in the real world.
I believe the comparison to "viral challenges" is in relation to the "Tide Pod Challenge" as it was started by people of the general public - not an organization.
I'm saying organisations are making me sign liability waivers when they knowingly promote something dangerous. I wouldn't be surprised if someone sued an individual who promoted dangerous stuff and did not absolve self from liability, be it via virtual challenge or other means.
I think that is the case that the product itself of providing a speed filter would not be an issue unless marketed in a way to encourage non safety. For the product to be considered unsafe they would have to do something drastic like not enable the filter until exceeding posted speed limits or something.
Even marketing would be tough to catch them on as how many grocery stores in college towns sell beer bongs right next to beer displays that are a few feet away from liquor. At what point would they be liable? Beer bong directly adjacent to bottles of JD/ shrink-wrapped with bottle/ buy 2 bottles of JD get a beer bong.
> Carrie Goldberg, a victims' rights lawyer who specializes in online abuse, brought a similar product liability case against the dating app Grindr, but a federal appeals court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected it on Section 230 grounds.
> To see a different federal appeals court go the opposite way could create an opening for more cases to challenge tech companies over flawed platform design leading to foreseeable harms, she said.
Article author seems to misunderstand section 230. Section 230 protects against liability for 3rd party content, such as the fake Grindr profile from that case.
I've never used Snapchat, but my understanding is filters are 1st party content: created by Snapchat themselves. That is why this case doesn't get 230 protection.
Edit: commenters below have informed me there are 3rd party filters but the speedometer one is 1st party.
The lower court also misunderstood it, that's what this decision is about.
> The panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing on the ground of immunity under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), an amended complaint brought against Snap, Inc., a social media provider. [...] The district court held that the CDA barred the plaintiffs’ claim because it sought to treat Snap, Inc. “as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” [...] In short, Snap, Inc. was sued for the predictable consequences of designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encouraged dangerous behavior. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Snap, Inc. did not enjoy immunity from this suit under § 230(c)(1) of the CDA. [...] The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
So I think the author article is correct that if other courts have been making similar mistakes, this appeals court decision could help.
People can make and use 3rd party filters, but snapchat makes their own as well. I am pretty positive the speedometer filter has existed before snapchat even allowed 3rd parties to make their own filters
> I've never used Snapchat, but my understanding is filters are 1st party content: created by Snapchat themselves. That is why this case doesn't get 230 protection.
Not always true w.r.t filters. A majority of the filters that users are shown by default (Dog with floppy ears, pink cat, white cat, face distortion, etc) are first party content created by Snapchat themselves. But there is a "marketplace" where new filters can be created and downloaded that's included with the snapchat application.
This is strictly a ruling that the company can be sued. They had moved for dismissal, claiming that the facts as alleged couldn't possibly support a finding of liability, and the appeals court here is only saying that the plaintiffs can proceed to gather facts by getting documents from Snap, deposing some of their employees, etc.
This ruling isn't about whether Snap did or didn't play a role: just that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible argument that they played a role, and are entitled to build their case.
This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.)
By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?
This is a fairly narrow decision. The lower court said Snapchat was immune under Section 230 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230), and the appeals court is saying no, the issue here is a feature of Snapchat itself, not user generated content, so Section 230 doesn't apply, and they sent it back to the lower court to try again.
This is the correct decision. If the suit is going to be dismissed, it needs to be dismissed on valid grounds. If there is no valid reason then it must continue towards trial, where it could still fail on the merits.
For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice.
Here's Texas, for example:
Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.
(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
...
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense;
Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough. After all, there's nothing wrong with being fast and furious on a racing track ;)
> Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough.
Whether or not such a disclaimer was sufficient evidence that they lacked the intent to encourage the crime (or whether the ass-covering was instead evidence that they knew they were encouraging crime and needed to deflect liability) would be a fact question if they were criminally charged with the crime of encouraging the crime of reckless driving.
OTOH, since they are being charged with a tort (civil wrong) and not that or any other crime, both the fact that such encouragement is a crime and fact questions relevant to Snap’s criminal liability for it are mostly irrelevant.
I feel this is exactly why in America you have to write "content might be hot" is a recipient made evidently and exclusively for hot beverages.
This is a civil suit, so criminal law is a peripheral issue. In particular, in a civil suit, most defendants found liable (i.e., most defendants who lose) have comitted no crime.
Yeah, but the commenter had asked "Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?"
A rhetorical question offered in support of the thesis sentence, "This is absurd," where "this" refers to a civil suit.
I pointed out that whether Snap, Inc, committed a crime has little bearing on whether the civil suit under discussion is absurd.
Are technology companies immune to all social responsibility? It sounds like you think they might be. But can we not think of a scenario where that would not be true?
For example, if Snapchat makes a filter that detects blood and "counts kills" as you stab people, are they not responsible for any actions that result? It sounds like you might claim "no", because "I could kill someone on my own if I wanted".
Not to completely derail your point, but I think if Snapchat added a "confirmed kills" counter it would be a net social positive and would make catching murderers really easy
I think it's downright harmful and abhorrent that they haven't yet. Why doesn't snapchat want to help stop crime??
> Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression?
That’s...debatable, but not the issue raised in this case.
> Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?
This isn’t a criminal charge, so whether or not the act is a crime is mostly irrelevant.
The first amendment does not give you the right to say anything, in the sense that you can be prosecuted for convincing someone to commit suicide for example.
My gut reaction was to say 'No if social media makes you do something stupid, that's your fault'
But a speed filter , which outright encourages breaking traffic laws is a whole different story. Who ever greenlit this trash needs to be put in jail.
A filter that displays your current speed has no inherent danger and does not encourage anything in and of itself. Idiots that decide to drive over 100mph in a car not designed for high speeds, on public roads, and with no proper training just to capture a cool number on a screen are the ones who should be put in jail.
Should we jail the person that invented the speedometer as well?
A speedometer does the opposite of encouraging unsafe behavior by alerting you to the unsafeness of that behavior. The filter in question encouraged unsafe behavior by incentivizing such behavior for social engagement, however absurd you think that incentivization is personally. This is a bit like saying a frat house hazing isn't wrong because no one actually makes the kids drink, the social incentive remains dangerous.
A speedometer is completely neutral in the same way the filter is. It displays speed. It does not indicate to you that what you are doing is safe or unsafe.
If it wasn't the filter then people would be sharing pictures of their speedometer while going fast thinking it's cool. What's the difference?
This is not at all like frat hazing, no one is forcing you to take a snapchat to be a part of their organization.
Having been a teen not that long ago, I've definitely seen camera photos of 100+ mph on a physical speedometer posted to social media. I don't see the difference here.
It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's the social incentive. If Twitter created a #highspeedometer hash tag, that would also be encouraging dangerous behavior.
>This is a bit like saying a frat house hazing isn't wrong because no one actually makes the kids drink, the social incentive remains dangerous.
Frats typically do force/heavily encourage members to drink... especially as part of the hazing process for new members.
If it's just all people drinking without being forced into it, that's truly no different than a regular college party, which also provides social incentives to act dangerously but is pretty different from hazing with alcohol.
> A filter that displays your current speed has no inherent danger and does not encourage anything in and of itself.
To anyone with a passing acquaintance with the male teenage mind, it is entirely predictable what anything that captures your current speed and broadcasts it to your friends will encourage.
I feel like the crucial difference is context. A speedometer built into a social media app based around sharing video clips/photos is vastly different from a speedometer built into a car.
Context matters as hell. But context can also add layers of discussion. Say I've created a filter showing how many meters underwater I am. Should I be held accountable for people who drown using it? How this is different from the speed filter? If the difference is "because people don't dive with cellphones" then you are putting the intention (and responsability) on users by default. Why not do that in the case for the speed filter as well?
For me the difference is in the main utility of the app. If all it does is measure, there's no issue IMO, but Snapchat is specifically for sharing content with others. It'd be like having a speedometer or depth meter with a load of 'share your speed/depth to twitter/fb/etc buttons. I would see that as just as bad.
A filter that broadcasts your speedometer to your followers live is different though. Almost like watching a live race car driver.
No because snapchat doesn't have live features, so it's only captured at one point in time via a photo or video
Agreed. In fact, some dashcams have built-in speedometers (via GPS tracking I believe). Should manufacturers be forced to disable them and/or face liability in case someone uses a dashcam to capture their dangerous driving?
We have speed limits on e-scooters and e-bikes, it's only path dependence that means we don't have them on cars, despite the obvious difference in risk.
This reminds me a bit of the McDonald's coffee case, something that seems absurd in a headline, but once you take time to understand it (like a jury or court would), makes a great deal of sense. The court of public opinion is generally a bad place to try things.
Not only did it make sense, McDonald's spent countless millions of dollars and years on influencing public opinion to make the general public believe it was about an elderly woman being clumsy. And it all turned into a joke until more people stepped forward.
The immediate similar product that springs to mind is the speed cameras. They'll tell you your speed along with a speed limit sign as you drive by them, but every single one I've seen in the past decade will just flash and say something like "slow down" if you're more than 10 over (don't ask how I know). It was obvious that people were going to try to get high scores.
This absolves the driver from the responsibility of using their vehicle safely. When you are in a car it is your responsibility to not drive it recklessly, end stop. I don't see how Snapchat is at fault, even if the app is boneheaded.
How is it different from snapping the speedometer in a car for clout?
Since we're throwing blame around how about the parents take actual responsibility for their shitty parenting?
This lame excuse is as infuriating as it is erroneous. If I hand your child a gun and drive them to a school and help them squeeze the trigger as I use every psychological trick to coerce them in to killing their peers, is it my fault or yours? Sounds like you think it's yours.
Perhaps modern social media isn't coercing kids in to crimes quite as overtly, but they are absolutely using their billion dollar budgets to manipulate our children in any way they conceivably can. And you want to blame the parents for what happens?
Last time I checked parents can confiscate their children's smartphones or at least ask about their whereabouts and which friends they're hanging out with.
Children are children, you can't expect the world to be a safe place, our job as parents is to protect them, not Let them run amok and then hold the world accountable.
I am not saying it's the parents' fault this happened but they bear more responsibility than Snapchat in my opinion.
My reply was too harsh, and I regretted it after. Sorry about that.
I agree that it is the parent's job to protect them. I just don't think it's fair that multi-billion dollar companies are allowed to do things that make my job harder. I'm one man with a very limited budget of time and money to devote to parenting. Facebook/Snapchat has an army of employees who go to work all day every day to get my kids addicted to their platform. That doesn't seem fair, and if they are able to get children to do things that are unwise, they should be held responsible for that. That's what I was trying to get at.
not gonna happen, as in modern standards, everyone else are to blame for your faults except you.
This and many other court decisions are making a mockery of the courts, and makes it impossible to have a simple and fair justice system. This is not about being sympathetic to Snapchat per se, but as with any precedent, you want the rules to apply equally across the board, regardless of the parties involved.
This is the same nonsense that has trained people (and I've definitely done it myself) to write "I'm not a lawyer" and "This is not financial advice" when posting online - as if common sense no longer applies to people reading random internet comments.
So the product was used "as intended by the designer" but outside the range of "legal" use. Imagine if all products that harm someone would be open for litigation.
The killer wore a boxing glove? Sue the manufacturer.
Knives, guns...