District Court Rightfully Dismissed Claims vs. Snap Due to Section 230: 5th Circuit
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of minor John Doe’s claims against Snap on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded Snap’s conduct from liability, said its opinion Monday (docket 22-20543).…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Doe was sexually assaulted for nearly a year and a half by his high school science teacher, who used Snap to groom him, said the opinion. Doe eventually sued the teacher and the school district, and against Snap he brought claims under Texas law for negligent undertaking, negligent design and gross negligence, it said. When the district court granted Snap’s motion to dismiss, it explained it and other courts said Section 230 provides immunity to Web-based service providers for all claims stemming from their publication of information created by third parties, it said. Since Doe’s claims against Snap were based on the teacher’s Snap messages to him, the district court found Snap immune from liability, it said. On appeal, Doe asks the 5th Circuit to “revisit this issue,” said the opinion. He cites several authorities “in support of his contention that the broad immunity provided by the CDA goes against its plain text and public policy,” it said. But as Doe himself acknowledges, his argument “is contrary to the law” of the 5th Circuit, it said. The opinion affirmed the judgment of the district court because “we are bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our court or by the Supreme Court.”