Gonzalez v. Google LLC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Gonzalez v. Google LLC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Gonzalez v. Google LLC.
In Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the Supreme Court reviewed a case where the plaintiffs alleged Google was liable for a terrorist attack due to ISIS's use of YouTube. The Ninth Circuit had previously held most claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, except for revenue-sharing claims, which also failed to state a viable claim. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.
The Court held that the complaint states little, if any, plausible claim for relief and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Gonzalez v. Google LLC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Gonzalez v. Google LLC
The Court exercises its power to review the Ninth Circuit's application of § 230 and remands the case for reconsideration in light of a related decision.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's application of § 230.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Gonzalez v. Google LLC
The Court evaluates whether the plaintiffs' complaint states a plausible claim for relief, which is related to the concept of standing.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court declines to address the application of § 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Gonzalez v. Google LLC that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court declines to address the application of § 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.
The Ninth Circuit held that most of plaintiffs' claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
We vacate the judgment below and remand the case for the Ninth Circuit to consider plaintiffs' complaint in light of our decision in Twitter.
