As seen in the timeline, most courts interpret Section 230's immunity-conferring provisions expansively, conferring broad immunity to "internet service providers" and dismissing claimants (with abandon) who attempt to hold those companies accountable for harmful content posted by other users.
Plaintiffs are increasingly bringing suit against large technology companies on different theories of liability. For example, the Plaintiff in Herrick v. Grindr sought to hold Grindr accountable for injuries based on a products liability theory. However, courts have largely failed to reach the merits of most suits with creative liability theories, opting instead to dismiss based on Section 230's protections.
As seen in the timeline, both major political parties in the United States, while divided on many issues, agree that reform to Section 230 is necessary. How each party believes best to achieve that reform is where a split occurs.
Various Committee Hearings have revealed a great divide between the concerns of Democrats and Republicans with relation to Section 230. While high-ranking Republicans are concerned about the stifling of free speech online and propose to broadly eliminate Section 230's protections, Democrats are in favor of "targeted, surgical revision" to ensure that large technology companies are not immune from liability for their part in spreading misinformation online. Nandita Bose, Democrats prefer 'scalpel' over 'jackhammer' to reform key U.S. internet law, Thomson Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tech-liability/democrats-prefer-scalpel-over-jackhammer-to-reform-key-u-s-internet-law-idUSKBN27E1IA (Oct. 29, 2020). While President-elect Joseph R. Biden has called for "revoking" Section 230, sources believe that he will be receptive to ideas coming from Congressional Democrats. Id.
While the debate over what to do with Section 230 wages on between the two major political parties, American scholars have also written extensively on the topic. Many proposals offer unique solutions to the problems at bar, aiming to balance innovation concerns against consumer protection concerns.
Time will tell, beyond January 20th, what will be of Section 230. The timeline and corresponding summation of judicial and reform trends aims to provide readers with a high-level overview of the history behind Section 230, influential Circuit Court decisions that exemplify how courts have responded, and various legislative and administrative actions aimed at constricting and, at times, expanding Section 230's scope.