SCOTUS Denies Software Case Review; Thomas Suggests CDA S. 230 Review

230’s language in an “appropriate case.” Malwarebytes claimed Section 230 immunity after Enigma sued. Enigma alleged Malwarebytes “engaged in anticompetitive conduct by reconfiguring its products to make it difficult for consumers to download and use Enigma products.” Thomas noted SCOTUS hasn’t interpreted Section 230 in the 24 years since its enactment: “Many courts have construed the law broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies.” He argued justices “should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms.” Extending the immunity “beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences,” Thomas wrote. Before allowing immunity from civil claims for “knowingly hosting illegal child pornography” or “for race discrimination,” the court should “be certain that is what the law demands.” FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said Thomas’ statement “strengthens the case for reform,” tweeting that it “explains how a couple of sweeping and questionable court decisions have expanded Big Tech’s protections far beyond the terms of Section 230 itself.” Attorneys for the companies didn’t comment.