Upcoming Supreme Court Decision Could Change the Way Technology Firms Do Business

SCOTUS.Photo byIan HutchinsononUnsplash

The way that social media companies and technology firms conduct themselves and the manner in which they provide content to their users may soon be forced to change. A decision from the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzalez v. Google LLC will be most of the most anticipated decisions of this court term, and the legal matter being debated in that case strikes at the very core of the business model for many technology firms.

At hand is the matter of so-called "recommendation systems" and whether a company can be held liable for what its system ultimately delivers to customers and users. The outcome could fundamentally change how many companies operate.

These systems are integral to technology companies, as they are the engine that delivers content, information, and whatever else a company may provide to the ultimate user or reader. For example, Facebook, owned by Meta, uses an algorithm to determine which news stories or shared items are most likely to interest a given user and then promotes those same items in that user's "feed."

Their importance to the business model of giants such as Google, Facebook, and others cannot be overstated. First, they are designed to keep users engaged, on the platform, and coming back for more. This grows the number of users each platform has while also increasing key metrics used by investors and advertisers. As for advertising, similar methods ensure that the ads purchased are being delivered to exactly the individuals a company is trying to target, resulting in increased ad revenue for the platforms.

In Gonzalez, the plaintiff - family members of 23-year-old Nohemi Gonzalez - allege that the recommendation systems in place encourage extremism and violence when left unchecked. This is not an entirely new concept or allegation, either. Studies have frequently been conducted into the matter with results showing a higher likelihood of extremism in those who use social media frequently and even more so when it is used as a primary source of news.

The theory in most of the studies, including those two above, is simple. As users prefer a "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoint or article, the recommendations continue to be aggressively more liberal or conservative in an effort to "match" the viewer's tastes. Eventually, users are gradually spun off far into the extreme categories of both viewpoints. The increasing polarization in the United States political climate has also been attributed to these systems in various studies.

A row of people using their phones.Photo byCamilo JimenezonUnsplash

The claims in the Gonzalez case stem from the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris that cumulatively claimed more than 130 lives, including that of the Plaintiff's family member, Nohemi Gonzalez. The family claims that the site's algorithms sent more and more extreme content to users based on their previous viewing history, ultimately referring users to recruitment videos for ISIS and thus holding some liability for sponsoring terrorism.

Google, in defense, has pointed to Section 230 of a communications law passed in 1996 as shielding it from liability in instances like this one and others. Section 230 has often been used as a defense in similar cases, owing to its rather broad protections. From the code itself:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

The section also states that providers of computer services are granted liability immunity in such cases. Plaintiffs in the Gonzalez case, as well as a similar case in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, have argued that rather than being a neutral arbitrator or service, technology companies lose that protection when their systems actively "recommend" videos or content, in effect serving as an endorsement on Google's behalf.

District courts had originally sided with Google, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on February 21st of this year, and a decision is widely expected to be released this term. Those interested in reading the full Supreme Court documents or learning more about the case can find the supporting information here as well as in the links above.