[cmeacham98]

> 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]

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]

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]

> 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.