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".
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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...