Wednesday’s hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court on Big Tech’s potential liability for hosting terrorist content focused more on civil code rather than sweeping changes to a company’s responsibility for removing controversial content. 

In Twitter v. Taamneh, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Twitter and other social media companies met the requirements for aiding and abetting after the complaint alleged the companies failed to “take meaningful steps” to remove offending content that helped terrorists increase their numbers. But the high court appeared more skeptical of the claims and, skipping broader questions of platform liability, focused more on the test for civil aiding and abetting claims established under Halberstam v. Welch.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]