Court Dismisses Section 230 Claim in Utah Social Media Law Case

2406030026), arguing that nothing in the state law is inconsistent with Section 230. “The court concludes the challenged provisions impose liability for conduct that falls beyond the protections Section 230 affords NetChoice members,” Judge Robert Shelby of the U.S. District Court of Utah ruled (case 2:23-cv-00911-RJS-CMR). “The Act’s prohibitions on the use of autoplay, seamless pagination, and push notifications are not inconsistent with Section 230.” The question is whether those bans “treat NetChoice members as the publisher or speaker of the third-party content they disseminate,” wrote Shelby in NetChoice v. Reyes. They don’t, he said. “The Act’s prohibitions focus solely on the conduct of the covered website -- the website’s use of certain design features on minors’ accounts -- and impose liability irrespective of the content those design features may be used to disseminate.” The judge added, “NetChoice’s interpretation of Section 230 as broadly immunizing websites from any liability for design decisions related to how a site ‘disseminate[s] and display[s] third-party speech’ is unmoored from the plain text of Section 230 and unsupported by the caselaw NetChoice cites.” In a statement Tuesday, NetChoice stressed that the court dismissed only one claim and that its First Amendment and other federal preemption claims remain in play. “We look forward to seeing Utah in court in August,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice Litigation Center director.