Topics
Latest
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:Denis Charlet / AFP / Getty Images
Apps
Biotech & Health
clime
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
Enterprise
EVs
Fintech
fundraise
Gadgets
Gaming
Government & Policy
computer hardware
Layoffs
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
Security
societal
distance
Startups
TikTok
exile
Venture
More from TechCrunch
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
Contact Us
A suit blaming Snapchat for a serial publication of drug overdoses among new citizenry can go along , a Los Angeles judge prevail this week .
A group of family members link up to children and teenager who overdosed on fentanylsued Snapchat Creator Snap last yr , accusing the social medium company of ease illicit drug great deal affect fentanyl , a synthetic opioid many clip deadlier than diacetylmorphine . Fentanyl , which is tinny to develop and often sold mask as other substances , can evidence deadly in even extremely small doses .
The parents and family members necessitate in the suit are being represent by the Social Media Victims Law Center , a business firm that specializes in civil cases against social media companies so as to make them “ legally accountable for the scathe they visit on vulnerable users . ”
The lawsuit , originally filed in 2022 and amended last year , alleges that executive at Snap “ know that Snapchat ’s design and unique features , including disappearing messages … were creating an on-line safe haven for the sale of illegal narcotic . ”
“ Long before the disastrous injuries sacrifice rise to this lawsuit , Snap recognise that its product features were being used by drug dealer to trade command substance to minors , ” Matthew P. Bergman , who founded the Social Media Victims Law Center , read at the time .
Snapchat rebutted the claims , note that it is “ working diligently ” to address drug take on its platform in coordination with law enforcement . “ While we are attached to advancing our efforts to stop drug dealers from engaging in illegal bodily function on Snapchat , we trust the complainant ’ allegation are both legally and factually blemished and will continue to defend that place in court , ” a Snapchat representative severalise TechCrunch .
In the ruling on Tuesday , Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff rejected Snap ’s travail to get the case dismissed . Snap had argued that the case should be make out on the reason that the societal media app is protected bySection 230of the Communications Decency Act , a law that protects online political platform for liability from substance abuser - render content .
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
“ Courts in California and the Ninth Circuit have explicitly held that Section 230 granting immunity applies to communication theory about illegal drug sales and their sometimes - tragic consequences — the precise fortune here — because the damage flow from third - party subject that was exchanged by third company on the defendant ’s social medium program , ” Snap’slawyers arguedin theirbrieflast year .
Riff did give notice four counts against Snap but override the company ’s efforts to throw out more than 10 others , let in negligence and wrongful last . He also ram into Section 230 ’s relevance to the case , but did not conclude that the law ’s legal carapace should protect Snap outright :
Both sides postulate that the law is clear and the effectual path forward obvious . Not so . The deepness of disagreement is revealed by the company ’ unfitness collectively to label Snap ’s societal media presence and activities : “ table service , ” “ app , ” “ product ” , “ shaft , ” “ interactive row of conduct , ” “ platform , ” “ website , ” “ package ” or something else .
What is clean and obvious is that the law is uncertain and in a state of development in at least two principal regards ( 1 ) whether “ section 230 ” ( a federal statute ) immunizes Snap from potential legal liability under the specific allegations asserted and ( 2 ) whether concepts ofstrict ware liability – unremarkably applicable to provider of tangible products – already do or now should extend to specified supposed conduct of Snap .
That interpretation islikely to prove controversialand thelatest in a snow flurry of late casesin which a justice let a lawsuit that might be tossed out on Section 230 grounds to go .
Supreme Court arguments this week could reshape the future of the internet
