Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules(npr.org)

30 points by nmalaguti 5 years ago | 57 comments

This reminds me of a story from college, regarding a business law class (US laws mostly). This class was interesting for a variety of reasons, but also pretty humorous as the professor was a full time lawyer, and taught the class because he enjoyed educating people. Generally, I've enjoyed the classes most where the professor brought real world experience to the podium and this class fit that bill perfectly.

As part of the class we went over a variety of law case studies. The professor had a bit of a schtick or joke where he would ask "can they sue?"--and the answer was always yes. There was no plausible case you could not litigate. The followup question was always where the details were. "Will this case get thrown out?" or "Will they win" was usually where the discussion occurred. The reason for that, is in US law, the bar is incredibly low for being able to litigate a case.

This case is no different. According to the reversal[0], effectively the court found it's plausible that the known reward system snapchat has (popularity, endorphins, whatever you want to call it) in combination with the speed filter, is not unrelated to the accident. That's all they said, and I believe that's the correct decision--they aren't saying Snap is to blame--just that the very high bar to throw out a case has not been met.

Personally, wouldn't read too much past that. Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.

[0] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20...

_rpd 5 years ago | |

> Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.

If it is settled with a payout, then it has succeeded.

spillguard 5 years ago |

Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation?

Edit:

Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action:

https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68

https://youtu.be/SUcvsHxaX_o?t=100

You'll note that neither of them have any special display for reaching fast speeds (IE "incentivizing" driving over the speed limit), and that the first one even says "Don't snap and drive".

dragonwriter 5 years ago | |

> Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation?

The factual contribution is a question for trial; the question here was whether Snapchat was legally immune from suit through CDA section 230, even though the material alleged to be the source of liability was first-party content.

spillguard 5 years ago | | |

I suppose that's really all there is to see here; it'll be interesting to see how this develops.

stinkytaco 5 years ago | |

I think if a social media organization encouraged a #highspeedometer hashtag they could also be liable. It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's that Snapchat set up a defacto social incentive for speeding.

sebastialonso 5 years ago | | |

IMO this is an inconsistent approach of placing responsability. What about regular people who start viral challenges that might get people killed? Should they also be held responsible? If the answer is no (in the real world, the answer is no), then why should Snapchat should be held accountable?

I cannot help the feel that this "social incentive" argument is the adult cousin of "but everyone's doing it, mom!".

clifdweller 5 years ago | | |

I think that is the case that the product itself of providing a speed filter would not be an issue unless marketed in a way to encourage non safety. For the product to be considered unsafe they would have to do something drastic like not enable the filter until exceeding posted speed limits or something.

Even marketing would be tough to catch them on as how many grocery stores in college towns sell beer bongs right next to beer displays that are a few feet away from liquor. At what point would they be liable? Beer bong directly adjacent to bottles of JD/ shrink-wrapped with bottle/ buy 2 bottles of JD get a beer bong.

cmeacham98 5 years ago |

> Carrie Goldberg, a victims' rights lawyer who specializes in online abuse, brought a similar product liability case against the dating app Grindr, but a federal appeals court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected it on Section 230 grounds.

> To see a different federal appeals court go the opposite way could create an opening for more cases to challenge tech companies over flawed platform design leading to foreseeable harms, she said.

Article author seems to misunderstand section 230. Section 230 protects against liability for 3rd party content, such as the fake Grindr profile from that case.

I've never used Snapchat, but my understanding is filters are 1st party content: created by Snapchat themselves. That is why this case doesn't get 230 protection.

Edit: commenters below have informed me there are 3rd party filters but the speedometer one is 1st party.

burkaman 5 years ago | |

The lower court also misunderstood it, that's what this decision is about.

> The panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing on the ground of immunity under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), an amended complaint brought against Snap, Inc., a social media provider. [...] The district court held that the CDA barred the plaintiffs’ claim because it sought to treat Snap, Inc. “as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” [...] In short, Snap, Inc. was sued for the predictable consequences of designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encouraged dangerous behavior. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Snap, Inc. did not enjoy immunity from this suit under § 230(c)(1) of the CDA. [...] The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

So I think the author article is correct that if other courts have been making similar mistakes, this appeals court decision could help.

OGWhales 5 years ago | |

People can make and use 3rd party filters, but snapchat makes their own as well. I am pretty positive the speedometer filter has existed before snapchat even allowed 3rd parties to make their own filters

fuzzer37 5 years ago | |

> I've never used Snapchat, but my understanding is filters are 1st party content: created by Snapchat themselves. That is why this case doesn't get 230 protection.

Not always true w.r.t filters. A majority of the filters that users are shown by default (Dog with floppy ears, pink cat, white cat, face distortion, etc) are first party content created by Snapchat themselves. But there is a "marketplace" where new filters can be created and downloaded that's included with the snapchat application.

GavinMcG 5 years ago |

This is strictly a ruling that the company can be sued. They had moved for dismissal, claiming that the facts as alleged couldn't possibly support a finding of liability, and the appeals court here is only saying that the plaintiffs can proceed to gather facts by getting documents from Snap, deposing some of their employees, etc.

This ruling isn't about whether Snap did or didn't play a role: just that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible argument that they played a role, and are entitled to build their case.

akersten 5 years ago |

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.)

By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

offtop5 5 years ago |

My gut reaction was to say 'No if social media makes you do something stupid, that's your fault'

But a speed filter , which outright encourages breaking traffic laws is a whole different story. Who ever greenlit this trash needs to be put in jail.

forgingahead 5 years ago |

This and many other court decisions are making a mockery of the courts, and makes it impossible to have a simple and fair justice system. This is not about being sympathetic to Snapchat per se, but as with any precedent, you want the rules to apply equally across the board, regardless of the parties involved.

This is the same nonsense that has trained people (and I've definitely done it myself) to write "I'm not a lawyer" and "This is not financial advice" when posting online - as if common sense no longer applies to people reading random internet comments.

Zobat 5 years ago |

So the product was used "as intended by the designer" but outside the range of "legal" use. Imagine if all products that harm someone would be open for litigation.

The killer wore a boxing glove? Sue the manufacturer.

Knives, guns...