In May 2017, three young men were driving at high speeds down a long rural road when they decided to share the feat on Snapchat
The Snapchat "speed filter" has been controversial since its introduction, but this new ruling opens the door for more car accident victims to sue Snap Inc. for the role it allegedly played in their crash.
Previously, tech companies have enjoyed broad immunity from civil suits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law protects companies from liability for the content posted by their users, whether that content is libelous, harmful, or outright dangerous. In keeping with that protection, the parents' suit was initially dismissed.
However, the recent ruling illustrates a distinction between the content posted by users and the design of the app itself. The ruling stated that the parents are blaming the "negligent design" of Snapchat, the creators of which they allege had a responsibility to design a "reasonably safe product."
"Snap indisputably designed Snapchat's reward system and Speed Filter and made those aspects of Snapchat available to users through the Internet," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "This type of claim rests on the premise that manufacturers have a 'duty to exercise due care in supplying products that do not present unreasonable risk of injury or harm to the public.'"
Victims' rights advocates applauded the court's decision which they say will give more victims the right to sue tech companies for the harm they allegedly cause.
"It's a triumphant day to see that an internet company can be held responsible for products that are defectively designed," Carrie Goldberg told NPR.
However, those who study online speech are concerned that this decision could weaken the protections offered by Section 230. If tech and social media companies can be held liable for the content posted by users, then it's likely that those posts will be tightly restricted. Others argue that without Section 230, it wouldn't be possible for social media platforms to operate.
This isn't the first time that consumers have attempted to sue regarding Snapchat's Speed Filter. In October of last year, a Georgia appeals court ruled that, while section 230 does not protect Snapchat on this front, the company still wasn't liable for the accident caused in that case.
In that case, a driver using the Speed Filter ran into another vehicle, injuring its passengers.
Snap argued that they had no responsibility for the injuries caused to people who were not using their app and that the driver was misusing the filter anyway, further disproving the company's responsibility for the incident.
The court found that since Snapchat didn't give awards or incentives for harmful behavior, and since the filter can be used in safe ways, that using the app correctly and safely is the responsibility of the user.
The Georgia case also isn't the first time that a suit has overcome a company's 230 protections only to fail on the merits of the case.
While some legal experts argue that allowing plaintiffs to plead around Section 230 will only lead to longer trials and higher court costs, there currently appears to be very few other ways for plaintiffs to have their cases heard in front of a jury. According to Goldberg, getting a jury trial is the "biggest hurdle in personal injury law."
Regarding the recent ruling, it's difficult to say which way the case will go from here. It could be decided in the same way as the Georgia case, or it could create a new precedent for these sorts of incidents. According to legal experts, the disagreement between the upper and lower courts regarding tech protections could ultimately result in this case going to the Supreme Court.
