Advice to Lawyers: Don’t Cite a One-Justice Statement as the View of “the Supreme Court”
From the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration in J.B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC:
First, the Supreme Court recently confirmed that the originally intended scope of Section 230 is “a far cry from what has prevailed in court,” and implored lower courts to stop “reading extra immunity into statutes where it does not belong.” Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, No. 19-1284, 2020 WL 6037214, at *2 (Oct. 13, 2020). The Malwarebytes guidance is particularly applicable here, because Justice Thomas specifically noted a case that is materially similar to this one as a problematic extension of Section 230 immunity. Id. at *4….
Very recent authority from the Supreme Court supports the conclusion that Section 230 immunity does not apply to Craigslist here. Recent lower court authority specifically regarding Craigslist likewise confirms that, were the Court to accept full briefing and consider Plaintiff’s amended allegations, it should determine that immunity is inappropriate here.
In Malwarebytes, issued less than one month ago, Justice Thomas cautioned lower courts to stop relying on Sect
Article from Latest – Reason.com