"The significance of these cases runs deeper: They threaten the legal architecture that has allowed Big Tech to reap trillions of dollars in profits with little risk of consequence in court."
"The plaintiffs pursued a strategy endorsed by none other than Justice Clarence Thomas, the intellectual leader of the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative supermajority."
"In 1996 Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunized websites for content that other people post on them."
Recent court verdicts against Meta and YouTube hold these tech companies liable for harms caused to young users, threatening their long-standing legal protections. The plaintiffs' strategy aims to pierce the federal shield that has allowed Big Tech to avoid accountability. Lawyers for the companies plan to appeal, but the legal landscape may shift due to support for the plaintiffs' theory from influential figures like Justice Clarence Thomas. This moment is compared to the historical reckoning faced by Big Tobacco, indicating a potential change in how tech companies are regulated.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]