“”This case illustrates how the Section 230 precedent is fading, as courts keep chipping away at its edges to reach counterintuitive conclusions that should be clearly covered by Section 230,” writes law professor and First Amendment expert Eric Goldman on his Technology and Marketing Law Blog.
The case in question—Nazario v. Bytedance Ltd.—involves a tragedy turned into a cudgel against tech companies and free speech.
It was brought by Norma Nazario, a woman whose son died while “subway surfing”—that is, climbing on top of a moving subway train. She argues that her son, 15-year-old Zackery, and his girlfriend only did such a reckless thing because the boy “had
become addicted to” TikTok and Instagram and these apps had encouraged him to hop atop a subway car by showing him subway surfing videos.
Nazario is suing TikTok, its parent company (Bytedance), Instagram parent-company Meta, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the New York City Transit Authority, in a New York state court, with claims ranging from product liability and negligence to intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and wrongful death.
…
teenagers doing dangerous, reckless things is not some new and internet-created phenomenon. And the fact that a particular dangerous or reckless thing might be showcased on social media platforms doesn’t mean social media platforms caused or should be held liable for their death.”