Families can sue app developer for breaking anti-bullying pledge

Revival of Lawsuit Against Yolo

An appeals court has revived a lawsuit against the anonymous messaging service Yolo, which allegedly breached a promise to reveal bullies on the app. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not shield Yolo from accusations of misrepresenting its terms of service, overturning a previous lower court ruling. However, the court also specified that the app cannot be held accountable for purported design flaws that facilitated harassment.

Background of the Lawsuit

Yolo was a popular app integrated with Snapchat that allowed users to send anonymous messages. In 2021, a lawsuit was filed against Yolo following the tragic death of a teenage user, Carson Bride, who had received disturbing messages from anonymous users. Despite reaching out to Yolo for help, Bride and his family were allegedly met with no response, with some emails bouncing back. As a result, Snap banned Yolo and another app implicated in the lawsuit, eventually discontinuing all anonymous messaging integration.

No Possibility of Policing the App

Bride’s family and other affected parents contended that Yolo violated its commitment to users by failing to enforce its terms of service. They highlighted a notification wherein Yolo promised to ban users engaging in inappropriate behavior and to reveal their identities if they sent harassing messages. However, with a modest staff of fewer than ten individuals, Yolo was unable to monitor the activities of its ten million daily active users effectively, rendering the promise unfulfilled. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that Yolo should have recognized the potential dangers of its anonymous design, thereby allowing harassment to occur.

Appeals Court’s Sympathetic Stance

A lower court had dismissed both claims citing Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, the appeals court took a more understanding approach, acknowledging that families were holding Yolo accountable for failing to deliver on its promises. Judge Eugene Siler, Jr., emphasized that while content moderation could address the issue, the core obligation was the promise itself.

Implications of the Ruling

The lawsuit against Yolo drew parallels to a previous Ninth Circuit ruling involving Snap, suggesting that platforms could be held responsible for features that indirectly encouraged harmful behavior. Despite rejecting the argument that anonymity was inherently risky, the appeals court underscored the importance of companies fulfilling their commitments to users. This ruling signals ongoing debates over the scope of Section 230 and the boundaries of tech companies’ immunity.

Conclusion

The decision in the Yolo lawsuit reflects a nuanced approach to holding internet companies accountable for their promises to users. While the ruling does not expand liability across the board, it underscores the need for platforms to uphold their terms of service and take responsibility for ensuring a safe online environment.

FAQs

Q: Can Yolo be held liable for not unmasking bullies on its app?

A: The appeals court’s decision allows for a claim against Yolo for misrepresenting its terms of service but limits liability for design defects.

Q: What was the key argument of the plaintiffs in the Yolo lawsuit?

A: Plaintiffs argued that Yolo failed to fulfill its promise to unmask and ban users who violated its terms of service, despite claiming to do so.

Q: How does the recent ruling on Section 230 impact tech companies?

A: The ruling underscores the importance of companies honoring their commitments to users and not extending immunity beyond what is established by law.

Credit: www.theverge.com