Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Background

In 2015, ISIS terrorists carried out coordinated attacks across Paris that killed 130 people, including 23‑year‑old U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez. Her parents and brothers sued Google LLC under federal law, alleging Google was directly and secondarily liable because ISIS and supporters used YouTube, which Google owns. The family asserted aiding-and-abetting and conspiracy claims under 18 U.S.C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2). A federal district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, ruling most claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act’s immunity (known as §230) and finding the lone revenue-sharing allegations also failed to state a viable claim. The family sought review in this Court only of the Ninth Circuit’s application of §230.

Reasoning

The central question was whether §230 shields Google from the family’s claims. The Court declined to address §230 here because the complaint itself appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief. The Court noted that the family’s secondary-liability allegations are materially identical to those in the related Twitter case and that, because the Court held in Twitter that those allegations failed to state an aiding-and-abetting claim under §2333(d)(2), the same defect likely affects this complaint. The Ninth Circuit’s unchallenged findings about the revenue-sharing allegations also support the view that those parts of the complaint fail to state viable claims.

Real world impact

The decision does not settle the broader question about platform immunity. Instead, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for that court to reconsider the complaint in light of the Twitter decision. The family’s lawsuit therefore remains unresolved; it may still be dismissed or amended on remand, and further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit will determine the next steps.