The US Supreme Court will consider whether Internet companies can be liable for the recommendations made by the algorithms they design, deploy, and use to direct specific Internet content to specific Internet users. In the case before the Court, the Gonzalez family filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that the company promoted Islamic State recruitment efforts on YouTube with its user-targeting algorithms. Nohemi Gonzalez was killed at La Belle Equipe bistro in Paris in a terrorist attack committed by the Islamic State in November 2015. The critical legal provision is known as "Section 230," a reference to a 1997 law that granted broad immunity to Internet companies.
Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information.
June 22, 2021 - Gonzalez v. Google (9th Cir. 2021)
Apr 4, 2022 - Petition for writ of certiorari is filed
Oct 3, 2022 - Petition granted
Nov 29, 2022 - Petitioner's brief due
Dec 6, 2022 - Amicus briefs in support of Petitioner or neither party due
Jan 11, 2023 - Respondent's brief due
CAIDP was established to "promote a better society, more fair, more just —
a world where technology promotes broad social inclusion based on fundamental rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law." Recommendation algorithms amplify hate, misinformation, and defamation. Many countries have taken steps to establish accountability for recommendation algorithms. The United States Supreme Court has the opportunity in this case to help ensure that AI systems are human-centric and trustworthy, a goal widely shared by democratic nations around the world.