Gonzalez v. Google LLC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Gonzalez v. Google LLC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Gonzalez v. Google LLC.
In Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the Supreme Court reviewed a case where the plaintiffs alleged that Google was liable for a terrorist attack due to ISIS's use of YouTube. The Ninth Circuit had previously dismissed most claims under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, except for revenue-sharing allegations. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.
The Court held that the plaintiffs' complaint appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Gonzalez v. Google LLC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Gonzalez v. Google LLC
The case involves the application of § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is related to the regulation of speech on internet platforms.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Ninth Circuit held that most of plaintiffs' claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Gonzalez v. Google LLC
The Supreme Court is reviewing the Ninth Circuit's application of § 230, which involves the power of courts to interpret and apply federal statutes.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's application of § 230.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Gonzalez v. Google LLC that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court declines to address the application of § 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.
The Ninth Circuit held that most of plaintiffs' claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
We vacate the judgment below and remand the case for the Ninth Circuit to consider plaintiffs' complaint in light of our decision in Twitter.