Social media companies cannot be sued for their alleged roles in a racially-motivated mass shooting at a g
rocery store in Buffalo in 2022, according to a New York court that said to allow the lawsuit would “result in the end of the Internet as we know it.”
In a 3-2 opinion, a New York appeals court decided that federal communications law and the First Amendment p
rovide the social media giants with immunity as publishers even though the lawsuit was based on product liability allegations.
The media firms had appealed from a 2024 ruling by an Erie County court denying their request to dismiss the com
plaint against them. But the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department, last week reversed that denial and ruled in favor of the social media firms’ c
ontention that they are immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.
The media firms sued included Alphabet, Meta, Google, Snap, Ama
on, Discord, Reddit, YouTube and others—many of which use algorithms that recommended content to users.
The same Fourth Department court last week permitted a liability la
wsuit against a gun maker MEAN LLC over the Buffalo shooting to proceed.
The plaintiffs in these civil actions are survivors of the attack and family members of the victims.
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
On May 14, 2022, 18-year old Payton S. Gendron opened fire on Black individuals outside and inside the TOPS gro
cery store, killing 10 people and wounding three others. The shooter spent months planning the attack and was motivated by the Great Replacement The
ory, which posits that white populations are being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants and people of color. The shooter pleaded guilty in state court to 10 cou
nts of intentional murder and has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In suing the Internet firms, the plaintiffs had not pressed claims under communications law or the First Amendment. The
y, in fact, conceded that the racist content consumed by the shooter is protected by the First Amendment, and that the social media platforms cannot be held liable for publishing it.
Instead, the plaintiffs argued that social media platforms are not entitled to protection under section 230 or the First Amendment because the complaints seek to hold them liable as product designers, not as publishers of third-party content. The plaintiffs pursued tort causes including negligence, unjust enrichment, and strict products liability based on defective design and failure to warn.