A lawsuit blaming Snapchat for a rash of drug overdoses among young people can move forward, a Los Angeles judge ruled this week.
A group of family members related to children and teens who overdosed on fentanyl A lawsuit was filed against the maker of Snapchat Snap last yearThe social media company was accused of facilitating illicit drug deals involving fentanyl, a synthetic opioid several times more lethal than heroin. Fentanyl, which is cheap to produce and often sold disguised as other substances, can be fatal even in very small doses.
The parents and family members involved in the lawsuit are being represented by the Social Media Victims Law Center, a firm that specializes in civil cases against social media companies in order to make them “legally liable for the harm they cause to vulnerable users.”
The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2022 and amended last year, alleges that Snap executives “knew that Snapchat’s design and unique features, including disappearing messages… were creating an online safe haven for the sale of illegal drugs.”
“Long before the fatal injuries that led to this lawsuit, Snap knew features of its product were being used by drug traffickers to sell controlled substances to minors,” Matthew B. Bergman, who founded the Social Media Victims Legal Center, said at the time. “. .
Snapchat refuted these allegations, noting that it is “working diligently” to address drug trade on its platform in coordination with law enforcement authorities. A Snapchat representative told TechCrunch: “While we are committed to strengthening our efforts to prevent drug traffickers from engaging in illegal activity on Snapchat, we believe the plaintiffs’ claims are both legally and factually flawed, and we will continue to defend this position in court.” .
In Tuesday’s ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence Reeve rejected Snap’s efforts to dismiss the case. Snap argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the social media app is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content.
“Courts in California and the Ninth Circuit have expressly held that Section 230 immunity applies to communications relating to illicit drug sales and their sometimes tragic consequences — the circumstances specified here — because the harm arises from third-party content shared by third parties on the private social media platform.” Defendant, Snap’s The lawyers argued in Brief last year.
Reeve dismissed four charges against Snap but overruled the company’s efforts to dismiss more than 10 other charges, including negligence and wrongful death. He also delved into the relevance of Section 230 to the case, but did not conclude that the legal shield of the law should fully protect Snap:
“Both sides confirm that the law is clear and the legal path forward is clear. not like that. The depth of the dispute was revealed by the parties’ joint inability to categorize Snap’s social media presence and activities: “service”, “application”, “product”, “tool”, “course of interactive behaviour”, ” platform”, and “website”. “,” “program” or something else.
“What is clear and obvious is that the law is unsettled and evolving with respect to at least two key matters (1) whether Section 230 (a federal law) immunizes Snap from potential legal liability under the specific allegations asserted and (2) what “If the concepts of strict product liability — which typically apply to suppliers of tangible products — actually apply or should now extend to Snap’s specific alleged conduct.”
This explanation is It is likely to be controversial And the The latest in a wave of recent cases The judge allowed a lawsuit to proceed that may be dismissed on the basis of Article 230.