Meta, Twitter, Microsoft, Yelp, Reddit, the EFF, and more file amicus briefs backing Google in Gonzalez v. Google, asking SCOTUS to keep Section 230 protections
The case sits alongside the industry’s separate challenge to Texas’s social-media moderation law, showing platforms pressing courts both to preserve liability protections and to limit state constraints on moderation.
First-order effects
Google gains support from Meta, Twitter, Microsoft, Yelp, Reddit, the EFF, and other amici as the Supreme Court considers the boundaries of Section 230 in Gonzalez.
The participating platforms and advocacy groups formally tie their own content-moderation interests to preserving Google’s legal shield.
Second-order effects
A ruling that narrows Section 230 would force the brief-signing platforms to reassess moderation and recommendation practices, consistent with Google’s warning that reduced protections would encourage broader censorship.
The coalition gives the Court a record of cross-industry opposition to changing the liability framework, rather than only Google’s account of the stakes.
Third-order effects
Gonzalez is part of a widening judicial contest over who sets the rules for online moderation: platforms are defending federal liability protections while challenging state-level moderation mandates.
The later oral-arguments recap indicates the Court struggled to identify Section 230’s boundary, leaving a durable source of uncertainty for platform governance even if the statute remains intact.
The trend: Major platforms are increasingly acting as a legal coalition to preserve discretion over online content moderation against both liability claims and state mandates.
What #Google and other “big tech” firms need to do is really speak *directly* to the public at large, in nontechnical terms, laying out for them how so many of the sites and services that they've taken for granted for decades will be decimated by changes to Section 230. …
Gonzales vs. Google SCOTUS briefs megathread! Yesterday a dozen briefs arguing that Section 230 properly protects “targeted recommendations” dropped, from groups all across the political spectrum. I read a bunch of them. Here are some common themes and juicy excerpts. 1/ https://…
This is a complicated, important issue. Personally, I'm certainly not say platforms should *never* be liable. I'm saying splitting hairs about the type of algorithm used is the wrong legal theory, and would make a huge mess of things. We recommend alternatives in our brief. 14/
In a new piece at @NEWSMAX, @RickSantorum says it well: “If the Court finds for Gonzalez, conservative views will be suppressed and American families will be bombarded with vile, harmful content.” #SCOTUS #Section230 https://www.newsmax.com/...
In an amicus brief of economists in Gonzalez v. Google, TPI's economists urge the Supreme Court to consider the economic consequences of its decision since targeted content sustains the digital economy through ads and recommendations. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... #SCOTUS htt…
We've filed an amicus ("friend of the Court") brief in the Gonzalez v. Google case that is in front of the Supreme Court. Read more about it here: https://transparency.automattic.com/ ...
There are a number of recurring themes: - no difference between “displaying” and “recommending” content - bookstores and newspapers recommend things too - 230 protects freedom of speech - 230 protects small platforms - 230 protects minorities - 230 protects conservatives /2
Today, ITI joined a coalition of tech organizations on an amicus brief to the #SCOTUS in Gonzalez v. Google maintaining that using algorithms to organize content should remain protected under Section 230: https://www.itic.org/... https://twitter.com/...
The Progressive Policy Institute submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzalez v. Google LLC, emphasizing the importance of the digital economy and Section 230 to the American economy. Read our statement: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/ ... https://twi…
Today, I published an article in Law360 about Gonzalez v. Google. If the Supreme Court cleaves algorithmic curation from #Section230, the functionality of the modern web will be in jeopardy. https://twitter.com/...
Overall, I feel I'm in good company, on the same side of this as Wikimedia and civil rights scholars, but also diverse interests like Meta and conservative think thanks. It's rare there is such wide agreement, but this is fundamental stuff. Thanks to all for their work. /FIN
Did not have being called out in a Supreme Court amicus brief on our list of things to see today... [Gonzalez v. Google LLC] Thanks for dragging us in, Reddit + 2 random mods! https://www.supremecourt.gov/ ... https://twitter.com/...
A broad range of Big Tech companies, their antitrust critics, human rights experts and even volunteer Reddit mods urged the Supreme Court not to narrow Section 230 in a pivotal case about YouTube algorithms: https://www.cnn.com/...