Last week, a California federal appeals court deviated from the norm in its ruling in a case involving Snapchat and the parents of three individuals who died after using the app's popular “speed filter.”

On the evening of May 28, 2017, 17-year-old Jason Davis was behind the wheel of a car that crashed into a tree while going at an estimated 113 mph. Along with Davis were 17-year-old Hunter Morby and 20-year-old Landen Brown. The investigation revealed that moments before the crash, Brown had pulled out his cell phone, opened the popular social media app, Snapchat, and used the app’s filter to record their speed which at one point topped 123 mph.

Following the crash, the parents of the two victims, Brown and Morby, filed a suit against the app on the grounds that the platform promoted reckless behavior through its “speed filter” which ultimately took the life of their children. The plaintiffs argue that through this speed filter, Snap "knowingly created a dangerous game."

The initial case argued that when users post on Snapchat using the speed filter, users believe that they have an advantage of gaining, “trophies, streaks, or social recognitions'' when their content shows the filter reaching speeds in the triple digits. Although there was this perception, the reality was that rewards couldn’t be obtained on the app for reaching triple-digit speeds according to Snap. The plaintiffs argued that the app was not transparent with users and that the lack of transparency is what led the boys to create the dangerous content that led to their deaths.

Following arguments, a federal trial judge dismissed the lawsuit in favor of Snap citing protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). This 1996 law is often used to shield tech giants, especially social media platforms, from any liability that may result from what users post on these platforms. Essentially, Section 230 disclaims tech platforms from any responsibility for what users post on their sites. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald explained that the parents were unable to establish “a causal connection between defendant’s Speed Filter and the car accident.”

When the case was brought in front of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, there was a stunning reversal that pushed the boundaries of what tech giants like Snap can and cannot be held liable for. The appellate judges rejected the Section 230 claims, pointing out that the filter was not created by a user of the Snapchat platform but was instead created by the company itself. This distinction would allow the parents to sue Snap as a manufacturer who designed a negligent product. The courts sided with the parents in that the app’s speed filter enticed users to achieve triple digits in order to increase engagement from followers.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, who wrote for the court, explained in the ruling, “This case presents a clear example of a claim that simply does not rest on third-party content. Snap indisputably designed Snapchat’s reward system and Speed Filter and made those aspects of Snapchat available to users through the internet.” Wardlaw adds, "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.'"

The court went on to rule that the protections of Section 230 did not apply to this case and that Snap could be held accountable for the role its product played in the deaths of the two teens and one adult. Wardlaw explains, “The parents’ negligent design claim faults Snap solely for Snapchat’s architecture, contending that the app’s Speed Filter and reward system worked together to encourage users to drive at dangerous speeds.”

This ruling has opened the door for increased scrutiny of Section 230 and what protection it offers tech companies actually entails.

A law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who authored a book about Section 230, Jeff Kosseff, shared with NPR, "It invites more attempts to test how narrow the 9th Circuit thinks Section 230 is, but that might be it.” Kosseff adds, "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?'"

The case has gone back to the lower court where it will be heard again. The possibility of Snap being held accountable could change the trajectory of how courts hear claims of a similar nature.