Case Summary and Outcome

The Supreme Court remanded the petitioner’s case back to Ninth Circuit for consideration of the complaint in light of its ruling in the Twitter v. Taamneh case. In the instant case, a series of coordinated attacks were carried out by ISIS terrorists in Paris, France, resulting in the deaths of 130 individuals, including Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen. Following the attack, Gonzalez’s parents and brothers filed a lawsuit against Google, LLC, citing violations of 18 U.S.C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2). The Court held that the petitioners were unable to establish Google’s direct or secondary liability in carrying out the terrorist attack.

Facts

In 2015, a series of coordinated attacks carried out by ISIS terrorists took place in Paris, France, resulting in the deaths of 130 individuals, including Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen. Following the attack, Gonzalez’s parents and brothers (the petitioners) filed a lawsuit against Google, LLC, (the respondents) citing violations of 18 U.S.C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2).

The lawsuit alleged that Google was directly and secondarily responsible for the terrorist attack that claimed Gonzalez’s life [p. 1]. In terms of secondary liability, the plaintiffs claimed that Google aided and abetted ISIS and conspired with the terrorist organization. The allegations primarily revolved around the use of YouTube, which is owned and operated by Google, by ISIS and its supporters.

The District Court dismissed the petitioners’ complaint due to the failure to state a claim but gave them the option to amend their complaint. Instead of amending, the petitioners chose to appeal, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal in a combined opinion that also addressed the case of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh [p. 2]. The Ninth Circuit determined that most of the petitioners’ claims were prohibited by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, except for the claims related to Google’s alleged approval of ISIS videos for advertising purposes and revenue sharing with ISIS through YouTube. The Ninth Circuit ruled that these particular claims were not protected by Section 230, but they still found that the petitioners’ allegations did not present a viable claim. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court which granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation and application of Section 230 [p. 2].

Decision Overview

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States was delivered unanimously in the present case. The central issue for consideration was whether the respondents could be held liable under 18 U.S.C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2) for aiding and abetting the terrorist attack in Paris. While relying on Twitter v Taamneh, Case No. 21–1496 (2023), to discuss the issue of secondary liability, the Court held that the petitioners had failed to state a claim for aiding and abetting under §2333(d)(2).

While discussing the question of direct liability, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit decision by stating that petitioners failed to plausibly allege that “Google reached an agreement with ISIS,” as required for conspiracy liability, and that Google’s acts were “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence or affect a government,” as required for a direct-liability claim under §2333(a). The Court found it sufficient to acknowledge that much (if not all) of the petitioners’ complaint seems to fail under either its decision in Twitter or the Ninth Circuit’s unchallenged holdings.

Therefore, the Court declined to address the application of §230 to a complaint that appeared to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief. Instead, the Court remanded the case for the Ninth Circuit to consider the petitioners’ complaint in light of its decision in Twitter v Taamneh.