Force v. Facebook, Inc.: Difference between revisions

Force v. Facebook
Force v. Facebook
Court	US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided	2019
Docket nos.	No. 18-397
Case history
Appealed to	Petition for Certiorari before the US Supreme Court, denied
Related action	Petition for Certiorari denied to Dryoff v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc.
Argument	Oral argument
Court membership
Judges sitting	Katzmann, CJ., and Droney and Sullivan, JJ.
Case opinions
Decision by	Droney, joined by Sullivan
Concur/dissent	Katzmann

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:14, 13 September 2023

Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019) was a 2019 decision by the US Second Circuit Appeals Court holding that Section 230 bars civil terrorism claims against social media companies and internet service providers, the first federal appellate court to do so.^[1]

The court ruled that the recommender system remains as part of the role of the distributor of the content and not the publisher, since these automated tools were essentially neutral.^[2]^[3] The US Supreme Court declined in 2020 to hear an appeal of the case.

Judge Robert Katzman gave a 35-page dissenting opinion in the Force case, stating "Mounting evidence suggests that providers designed their algorithms to drive users toward content and people the users agreed with – and that they have done it too well, nudging susceptible souls ever further down dark paths."^[4] Katzman's dissent was cited by Judge Clarence Thomas statement in respect of denying certiorari to Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curaie brief in the case, arguing for platform immunity.^[5]

The court that year also declined to hear Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group Inc., a related case that cited Force.

Case History

Oral arguments

Subsequent Case Law and Commentary

References

^ Mackey, Sophia Cope and Aaron (August 7, 2019). "Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Bars Civil Terrorism Claims Against Facebook". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^ Neuburger, Jeffrey (August 9, 2019). "Facebook Shielded by CDA Immunity against Federal Claims for Allowing Use of Its Platform by Terrorists". National Law Review. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved August 14, 2019.
^ Robertson, Adi (May 18, 2020). "Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Facebook for hosting terrorists". The Verge. Archived from the original on January 30, 2021. Retrieved May 18, 2020.
^ McCabe, David (March 24, 2021). "How a Stabbing in Israel Echoes Through the Fight Over Online Speech". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
^ "EFF amicus brief Force v Facebook 2d Circuit". Electronic Frontier Foundation. August 5, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2022.

This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

[1] Mackey, Sophia Cope and Aaron (August 7, 2019). "Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Bars Civil Terrorism Claims Against Facebook". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved October 4, 2022.

[natreview_terrorism_facebook-2] Neuburger, Jeffrey (August 9, 2019). "Facebook Shielded by CDA Immunity against Federal Claims for Allowing Use of Its Platform by Terrorists". National Law Review. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved August 14, 2019.

[3] Robertson, Adi (May 18, 2020). "Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Facebook for hosting terrorists". The Verge. Archived from the original on January 30, 2021. Retrieved May 18, 2020.

[4] McCabe, David (March 24, 2021). "How a Stabbing in Israel Echoes Through the Fight Over Online Speech". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 4, 2022.

[5] "EFF amicus brief Force v Facebook 2d Circuit". Electronic Frontier Foundation. August 5, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Short description|US Appeals Court Case challenging liability exemption under Section 230 for ISPs and Social Media}}
+{{Short description|2019 US appeals court decision}}
+{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
 {{Infobox court case
 | name = Force v. Facebook
@@ Line 28: / Line 29: @@
 | keywords = <!-- {{Hlist|...}} -->
 | italic title =
-| Oral argument = https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5c8e0415-2455-4247-aad9-9f8390a5ae7e/1/doc/18-397.mp3
+| OralArgument = https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5c8e0415-2455-4247-aad9-9f8390a5ae7e/1/doc/18-397.mp3
 }}
+{{Meta sidebar}}
-'''Force v. Facebook, Inc.''', 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019) was a 2019 decision by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|US Second Circuit Appeals Court]] holding that [[Section 230]] bars civil terrorism claims against [[Social media|social media companies]] and internet service providers, the first federal appellate court to do so.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mackey |first=Sophia Cope and Aaron |date=2019-08-07 |title=Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Bars Civil Terrorism Claims Against Facebook |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/second-circuit-rules-section-230-bars-civil-terrorism-claims-against-facebook |access-date=2022-10-04 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |language=en}}</ref>
+'''''Force v. Facebook, Inc.''''', 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019) was a 2019 decision by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|US Second Circuit Appeals Court]] holding that [[Section 230]] bars civil terrorism claims against [[Social media|social media companies]] and internet service providers, the first federal appellate court to do so.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mackey |first=Sophia Cope and Aaron |date=2019-08-07 |title=Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Bars Civil Terrorism Claims Against Facebook |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/second-circuit-rules-section-230-bars-civil-terrorism-claims-against-facebook |access-date=2022-10-04 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |language=en}}</ref>
 The court ruled that the [[recommender system]] remains as part of the role of the distributor of the content and not the publisher, since these automated tools were essentially neutral.<ref name="natreview terrorism facebook">{{cite web |last=Neuburger |first=Jeffrey |date=August 9, 2019 |title=Facebook Shielded by CDA Immunity against Federal Claims for Allowing Use of Its Platform by Terrorists |url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/facebook-shielded-cda-immunity-against-federal-claims-allowing-use-its-platform |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107173455/https://www.natlawreview.com/article/facebook-shielded-cda-immunity-against-federal-claims-allowing-use-its-platform |archive-date=January 7, 2021 |access-date=August 14, 2019 |work=[[National Law Review]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |date=May 18, 2020 |title=Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Facebook for hosting terrorists |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/18/21262248/supreme-court-rejects-stuart-force-facebook-section-230-lawsuit-algorithms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210130004435/https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/18/21262248/supreme-court-rejects-stuart-force-facebook-section-230-lawsuit-algorithms |archive-date=January 30, 2021 |access-date=May 18, 2020 |work=[[The Verge]]}}</ref>  The [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]] declined in 2020 to hear an appeal of the case.
-Judge [[Robert Katzmann|Robert Katzman]] gave a 35-page dissenting opinion in the ''Force'' case, stating “Mounting evidence suggests that providers designed their algorithms to drive users toward content and people the users agreed with — and that they have done it too well, nudging susceptible souls ever further down dark paths."<ref>{{Cite news |last=McCabe |first=David |date=2021-03-24 |title=How a Stabbing in Israel Echoes Through the Fight Over Online Speech |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-hearing-facebook.html |access-date=2022-10-04 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>  Katzman's dissent was cited by Judge Clarence Thomas statement in respect of denying certiorari to ''[[Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC]]''.
+Judge [[Robert Katzmann|Robert Katzman]] gave a 35-page dissenting opinion in the ''Force'' case, stating "Mounting evidence suggests that providers designed their algorithms to drive users toward content and people the users agreed with{{snd}} and that they have done it too well, nudging susceptible souls ever further down dark paths."<ref>{{Cite news |last=McCabe |first=David |date=2021-03-24 |title=How a Stabbing in Israel Echoes Through the Fight Over Online Speech |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/technology/section-230-hearing-facebook.html |access-date=2022-10-04 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>  Katzman's dissent was cited by Judge Clarence Thomas statement in respect of denying certiorari to ''[[Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC]]''.
 The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] filed an [[amicus curaie]] brief in the case, arguing for platform immunity.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-08-05 |title=EFF amicus brief Force v Facebook 2d Circuit |url=https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-force-v-facebook-2d-circuit |access-date=2022-10-04 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |language=en}}</ref>
@@ Line 47: / Line 49: @@
 {{Empty section|date=October 2022}}
+== See also ==
+* [[Lawsuits involving Meta Platforms]]
 == References ==
 {{Reflist}}
+{{Meta Platforms}}
-[[Category:United States lawsuits]]
+{{Improve categories|date=June 2023}}
+[[Category:2019 in United States case law]]