WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Google, Twitter, and Facebook in lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for terrorist attacks. But the justices sidestepped the big issue hovering over the cases, the federal law that shields social media companies from being sued over content posted by others.

The justices unanimously rejected a lawsuit alleging that the companies allowed their platforms to be used to aid and abet an attack at a Turkish nightclub that killed 39 people in 2017.

Supreme Court Social Media Liability

Beatriz Gonzalez, right, the mother of 23-year-old Nohemi Gonzalez, a student killed in the Paris terrorist attacks, and stepfather Jose Hernandez, speaking outside the Supreme Court on Feb. 21. Alex Brandon/Associated Press file

In the case of an American college student who was killed in an Islamic State terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, a unanimous court returned the case to a lower court but said there appeared to be little, if anything, left of it.

The high court initially took up the Google case to decide whether the companies’ legal shield for the social media posts of others, contained in a 1996 law known as Section 230, is too broad.

Instead, though, the court said it was not necessary to reach that issue because there is little tying Google to responsibility for the Paris attack.

“We, therefore, decline to address the application of Section 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

Advertisement

The outcome is, at least for now, a victory for the tech industry, which predicted havoc on the internet if Google lost. But the high court remains free to take up the issue in a later case.

The families of victims in both attacks asserted that the internet giants did not do enough to prevent their platforms from being used by extremist groups to radicalize and recruit people.

They sued under a federal law that allows Americans injured by a terrorist attack abroad to seek monetary damages in federal court.

The family of a victim in the bombing of the Reina nightclub in Istanbul claimed that the companies assisted in the growth of the Islamic State group, which claimed responsibility for the attack.

But writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the family’s “claims fall far short of plausibly alleging that defendants aided and abetted the Reina attack.”

In the Paris attack, the family of a college student raised similar claims against Google over her killing at a Paris bistro, in an assault also claimed by the Islamic State. That was one of several attacks on a June night in the French capital that left 130 people dead.

Advertisement

The family wants to sue Google for YouTube videos they said helped attract IS recruits and radicalize them. Google owns YouTube.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that most of the claims were barred by the Internet immunity law.

The Supreme Court’s decision in October to review that ruling set off an alarm at Google and other technology companies. “If we undo Section 230, that would break a lot of the internet tools,” Kent Walker, Google’s top lawyer, said.

Yelp, Reddit, Microsoft, Craigslist, Twitter, and Facebook were among the companies warning that searches for jobs, restaurants, and merchandise could be restricted if those social media platforms had to worry about being sued over the recommendations they provide and their users want.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.