How an obscure legal doctrine called the Henderson test could weaken Section 230 and alter free speech on the web

Legal test that Google According to several experts who advocate for upholding the law to the best degree, the lawyer told the Supreme Court that he was roughly “96% right,” which could drastically undermine the liability protections the corporate and other tech platforms have relied on for a long time.

The so-called “Henderson test” would significantly weaken the ability of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, several experts said in talks and briefings following oral arguments within the Gonzalez v. Google case. Some of those that criticized Google’s concession even work for groups backed by the corporate.

Section 230 is a statute that protects technology platforms’ ability to host content from users – corresponding to social media posts, video and audio uploads, and comments – without being legally responsible for their content. It also allows platforms to moderate their services and take away posts they deem objectionable.

The law is central to the query that can be decided by the Supreme Court within the Gonzalez case, which asks whether platforms like Google YouTube will be held chargeable for algorithmically recommending user posts that appear to endorse or promote terrorism.

During Tuesday’s disputes, judges seemed to be hesitant to issue a ruling that might review section 230.

But even in the event that they avoid commenting on the law, they’ll still raise objections that change the way it is enforced or pave the way in which for the law to be modified in the longer term.

Some proponents imagine that a technique the Supreme Court could challenge Section 230 is by approving the Henderson test. Ironically, Google’s lawyers can have given the court more confidence to back this test if it selected to accomplish that.

Henderson’s test was created in November ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data. The plaintiffs on this case are suing a gaggle of firms that collect public details about individuals, corresponding to criminal records, vote records and driving information, after which put it right into a database that they sell to 3rd parties. The plaintiffs alleged that the businesses violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to maintain accurate information and providing inaccurate information to a prospective employer.

A lower court ruled that Section 230 excluded the claims, but an appeals court overturned that call.

The appellate court wrote that for section 230 protection to use, “we require the defendant to be responsible for inappropriate content of their publication.”

In this case, it wasn’t the content itself that was responsible, but the way in which the corporate selected to present it.

The court also ruled that Public Data was chargeable for the content since it determined the way it was presented, although the data was taken from other sources. The court said it was likely that some information sent by Public Data to one in all the claimant’s potential employers was “inaccurate because information was omitted or summarized in a misleading way.” In other words, when public data has made changes to the data it downloads, it has turn out to be a provider of data content.

Had the Supreme Court upheld the Henderson ruling, it might have effectively “undermined Section 230,” said Jess Miers, general counsel for the Chamber of Progress, a center-left industry group that counts Google amongst its supporters. Miers said that is since the essential advantage of Section 230 is to assist quickly dismiss cases against platforms that deal with user posts.

“It’s a very dangerous test since it again encourages plaintiffs to cite their claims in a way that claims, well, we’re not talking about how inappropriate the content at issue is,” Miers said. “We’re talking in regards to the way the service combined that content or compiled that content.”

Eric Goldman, a professor within the law department of Santa Clara University, wrote on his own blog that Henderson would have been “a disastrous ruling had he been adopted by SCOTUS”.

“It was shocking to me that Google supports Henderson’s opinion since it is a dramatic narrowing down of Section 230,” Goldman said at a virtual press conference hosted by the Chamber of Progress after the bickering. “And to the extent that the Supreme Court takes that bait and says, ‘Henderson is nice for Google, he’s good for us,’ we are going to actually see a dramatic narrowing down of Section 230 where plaintiffs will find many other avenues to bring cases which can be content-based.” third parties. They’ll just say they’re based on something aside from the damage that was within the third-party content.”

Google pointed to parts of it short within the case of Gonzalez, which debate the Henderson test. In short, Google is trying to tell apart the actions of a search engine, social networking site or chat room that display pieces of third-party information from the actions of a credit report website corresponding to the Henderson case.

Google says that within the case of chat, although “organization and layout is provided by the operator, basic posts are still third-party content”, meaning it will fall under section 230.

“By contrast, if a credit reporting site fails to supply users with its own required statement of consumer rights, Section 230(c)(1) doesn’t exclude liability,” Google wrote. “Even if the positioning also publishes third-party content, the failure to summarize consumer rights and supply this information to customers is the only real operation of the positioning.”

Google also said 230 wouldn’t apply to an internet site that “requires users to submit allegedly illegal preferences”, corresponding to those that might violate housing laws. This is because “by making a cloth contribution to [the content’s] illegal, the web site makes that content its own and assumes responsibility for it,” Google said, citing the 2008 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com case.

Section 230 experts analyzing the Supreme Court’s arguments were amazed by the choice of Google’s lawyer to offer such full support to Henderson. In trying to know this, several have suggested that it can have been a strategic decision to try to indicate the judges that Section 230 isn’t an infinite free pass for technology platforms.

But in doing so, many felt that Google had gone too far.

Cathy Gellis, who represented amici in a briefing submitted on the matter, said at a briefing on the Chamber of Progress that Google’s lawyer probably wanted for instance the road where section 230 does and doesn’t apply, but “by backing it so broadly, he has probably supported more, than we expected, and positively greater than amici would necessarily sign.”

Corbin Barthold, Internet Policy Advisor at Powered by Google TechFreedom said in a separate press conference that the concept Google can have been attempting to convey by supporting Henderson was not necessarily a nasty one per se. He said they appear to be attempting to argue that even for those who use a definition of publication like Henderson’s, organizing information is inherent in what platforms do because “there isn’t a such thing as brute-force information.”

But by making this argument, Google’s lawyer Barthold said, “it type of threw a fortune hostage.”

“Since the court won’t buy Google’s argument that there may be in truth no distinction here, it could go within the incorrect direction,” he added.

Miers speculated that Google can have viewed the Henderson case as relatively secure to cite, provided that it concerns alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, not a user post on social media.

“Perhaps Google’s lawyers were searching for a solution to show the court that there are limits to Section 230 immunity,” Miers said. “But I believe by doing that it encourages quite problematic readings for a Section 230 immunity test that might have quite irreversible results for future web law disputes.”

WATCH: Why the Supreme Court’s Section 230 case could reshape the web