Force v. Facebook, Inc.
| Force v. Facebook | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Decided | 2019 |
| Docket nos. | No. 18-397 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed to | Petition for Certiorari before the US Supreme Court, denied |
| Related action | Petition for Certiorari denied to Dryoff v. Ultimate Software Group, Inc. |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Katzmann, CJ., and Droney and Sullivan, JJ. |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Droney, joined by Sullivan |
| Concur/dissent | Katzmann |
| This article is part of a series about |
| Meta Platforms |
|---|
 |
| Products and services |
| People |
| Business |
Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2019) was a 2019 decision by the US Second Circuit Appeals Court holding that Section 230 bars civil terrorism claims against social media companies and internet service providers, the first federal appellate court to do so.[1]
The court ruled that the recommender system remains as part of the role of the distributor of the content and not the publisher, since these automated tools were essentially neutral.[2][3] The US Supreme Court declined in 2020 to hear an appeal of the case.
Judge Robert Katzman gave a 35-page dissenting opinion in the Force case, stating "Mounting evidence suggests that providers designed their algorithms to drive users toward content and people the users agreed with – and that they have done it too well, nudging susceptible souls ever further down dark paths."[4] Katzman's dissent was cited by Judge Clarence Thomas statement in respect of denying certiorari to Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curaie brief in the case, arguing for platform immunity.[5]
The court that year also declined to hear Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group Inc., a related case that cited Force.
Case History
[edit]Subsequent Case Law and Commentary
[edit]![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (October 2022) |
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Mackey, Sophia Cope and Aaron (August 7, 2019). "Second Circuit Rules That Section 230 Bars Civil Terrorism Claims Against Facebook". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
- ^ Neuburger, Jeffrey (August 9, 2019). "Facebook Shielded by CDA Immunity against Federal Claims for Allowing Use of Its Platform by Terrorists". National Law Review. Archived from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved August 14, 2019.
- ^ Robertson, Adi (May 18, 2020). "Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Facebook for hosting terrorists". The Verge. Archived from the original on January 30, 2021. Retrieved May 18, 2020.
- ^ McCabe, David (March 24, 2021). "How a Stabbing in Israel Echoes Through the Fight Over Online Speech". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
- ^ "EFF amicus brief Force v Facebook 2d Circuit". Electronic Frontier Foundation. August 5, 2019. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
 | This article needs additional or more specific categories. (June 2023) |
  | This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |