Snapchat could be liable in fatal car crash that killed three teens

In May 2017, three young men were speeding along a Walworth County, Wisconsin road at a staggering 123 miles per hour. Moments before the car veered off the road and struck a tree, killing all three, one of the boys opened Snapchat and used the speed filter to post the escapade on the social media platform.

Parents say the boy wanted to use the filter to get attention from followers.

In the wake of the tragedy, the boys' parents sued Snap Inc., the maker of the social media platform Snapchat, arguing that the company "knowingly created a dangerous game" by creating that speed filter.

While district courts had dismissed the case citing immunity that social media companies hold under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the appeals court's reversal of the ruling says that this instance does not fall under Section 230 protections.

Under Section 230, social media companies cannot be sued or held liable for content posted on their platform. The appeals court ruled that with this case, the speed filter is part of the Snapchat app design and is not content posted by someone else.

The parents said that the speed filter tempts young people to drive faster, making a contest of it. The appeals court ruled that Snapchat, like any other company that creates a harmful product, should be held liable.

"Snap indisputably designed Snapchat's reward system and Speed Filter and made those aspects of Snapchat available to users through the Internet," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote.

"This type of claim rests on the premise that manufacturers have a 'duty to exercise due care in supplying products that do not present unreasonable risk of injury or harm to the public.'"

Wardlaw adds that "Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunity is unavailable in this case."

Legal experts are warning that this appeal may bring forth more lawsuits that could attempt to weaken Section 230.

"It invites more attempts to test how narrow the 9th Circuit thinks Section 230 is, but that might be it," said US Naval Academy law professor Jeff Kosseff. "We know in this case the court has determined that 230 does not apply. I'm sure there are plaintiffs' lawyers out there thinking, 'Well, how about this other type of product flaw?'"

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman pointed to a very similar George case where Snap Inc. was sued for the speed filter.

The appeals court had also found in that case that Snap could be sued for the role the speed filter had played in causing harm, but when re-examined by a trial court, they found Snap could not be held liable for misuse due to the display of "don't snap and drive."

Goldman also stated that it would be significant if a trial court ruled against a tech company. In the past, many of courts that ruled Section 230 immunity didn't apply in the case would rule in favor of the tech companies.