15 Cited authorities

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.
570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 262 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that Yahoo! was immune from liability for negligently declining to remove indecent third-party content
Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.
934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) Cited 70 times 2 Legal Analyses
Rejecting claim that algorithms used to analyze and promote user content were themselves content
Jane Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.
824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) Cited 76 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding that failure-to-warn claim was not barred by CDA because plaintiff did not seek to hold defendant liable as a "publisher or speaker"
Gonzalez v. Google LLC
2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) Cited 61 times 5 Legal Analyses
Rejecting conspiracy claim absent allegations that "Google tacitly agreed to commit homicidal terrorist acts with ISIS"
Casterson v. Superior Court
101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 102 times
In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Cross v. Facebook, Inc.
14 Cal.App.5th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) Cited 49 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that "[i]t cannot be disputed that Facebook's website" is a public forum within the meaning of section 425.16(b)
Lemmon v. Snap, Inc.
995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) Cited 35 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Snap is not entitled to immunity under Section 230 for claims arising out of the " 'predictable consequences of' designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encourages dangerous behavior"
George v. Auto. Club of South. California
201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 47 times
Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity
Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.
60 Cal.App.5th 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) Cited 31 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Murphy, Twitter's removal of the plaintiff's posts and account allegedly violated Twitter's own user agreement and enforced its own hateful conduct policy in a discriminatory manner.

Minute Order

15 Cited authorities

Holding that Yahoo! was immune from liability for negligently declining to remove indecent third-party content

Rejecting claim that algorithms used to analyze and promote user content were themselves content

Finding that failure-to-warn claim was not barred by CDA because plaintiff did not seek to hold defendant liable as a "publisher or speaker"

Rejecting conspiracy claim absent allegations that "Google tacitly agreed to commit homicidal terrorist acts with ISIS"

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Finding that "[i]t cannot be disputed that Facebook's website" is a public forum within the meaning of section 425.16(b)

Holding that Snap is not entitled to immunity under Section 230 for claims arising out of the " 'predictable consequences of' designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encourages dangerous behavior"

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

In Murphy, Twitter's removal of the plaintiff's posts and account allegedly violated Twitter's own user agreement and enforced its own hateful conduct policy in a discriminatory manner.