Snapchat’s Speed Filter Not Protected by Section 230–Maynard v. Snapchat

Christal McGee allegedly drove recklessly (over 100 mph) to capture her accomplishment in Snapchat’s speed filter. McGee’s car hit Maynard’s car and caused permanent brain damage to someone in the car. The Maynards sued Snapchat, alleging “Snapchat knew that its users could ‘use its service in a manner that might distract them from obeying traffic or safety laws.’ Further, the Maynards allege that Snapchat’s Speed Filter ‘encourages’ dangerous speeding and that the Speed Filter ‘facilitated McGee’s excessive speeding[,]’ which resulted in the crash.” However, the Maynards do not allege that McGee posted a snap displaying the speed filter. The lower court granted Snapchat’s Section 230 motion to dismiss. The appeals court reversed. The court analyzes the “treat as publisher or speaker” prong and distinguishes Barnes v. Yahoo, Fields v. Twitter (the district court ruling), and Doe v.…

Read more detail on Recent Legal Marketing posts –

Related news:

This entry was posted in Legal Marketing and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply