BREAKING: Supreme Court sides with social media companies, keeps Section 230 in place

In Gonzalez v Google, the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American who was one of 129 killed in the 2015 ISIS attack in Paris, alleged that the company had aided ISIS in violation of anti-terrorism laws by recommending videos posted by ISIS to users on YouTube, which Google owns.

The unsigned opinion stated that the court declined to "address the application of [Section] 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief."

In Twitter v Taamneh, brought forth by the family of Nawrs Alassaf who was killed in a Turkish nightclub terrorist attack by Abdulkadir Masharipov, the plaintiff sought to hold Twitter, Facebook, and Google liable for allegedly aiding in the nightclub shooting.

"The nexus between defendants and the Reina attack is far removed," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the unanimous decision. "As alleged by plaintiffs, defendants designed virtual platforms and knowingly failed to do 'enough' to remove ISIS-affiliated users and ISIS-related content — out of hundreds of millions of users worldwide and an immense ocean of content — from their platforms."

"Yet, plaintiffs have failed to allege that defendants intentionally provided any substantial aid to the Reina attack or otherwise consciously participated in the Reina attack — much less that defendants so pervasively and systemically assisted ISIS as to render them liable for every ISIS attack," he continued, adding that the allegations "are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack."

This is a breaking story and will be updated.