FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Issues

Can online platforms be held liable for algorithmically recommending harmful third-party content to users?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether online platforms can be held liable for algorithmically recommending third-party content to users. Petitioner Reynaldo Gonzalez argues that Google LLC can be held liable for YouTube’s recommendations of ISIS recruitment videos because YouTube does not qualify for immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Respondent Google LLC argues that since YouTube did not create the ISIS videos at issue, it should be able to claim immunity under Section 230. This case will affect the availability of remedies for victims of harmful online content, internet company accountability, moderation, and online speech.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. 

In 2015, Nohemi Gonzalez, a United States citizen studying abroad in France, was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris. Gonzalez v. Google LLC. The following day, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”) claimed responsibility by issuing a written statement and posting a YouTube video. Id.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products, LLC

Issues

Does the humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product receive heightened First Amendment protection, and is such use “noncommercial” and therefore immune from a dilution by tarnishment claim?

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. demanded that VIP Products stop selling a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels,” a toy in the shape of a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle but with dog-related alterations to the name and label. The issue is whether the “Bad Spaniels” toy should receive heightened First Amendment protection as a form of expressive conduct or whether courts should analyze such satirical products under the traditional trademark infringement test of the Lanham Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court must consider whether humorous use of another’s trademark should be considered a “noncommercial” use and therefore be immune from a dilution by tarnishment claim. Jack Daniel’s contends that the Ninth Circuit’s endorsement of the Second Circuit’s likelihood-of-confusion test undermines the purpose of the Lanham Act and that “Bad Spaniels” violates the Lanham Act’s anti-dilution provision. VIP Products counters that the Second’s Circuit’s test fills in gaps in the Lanham Act and is widely accepted by lower federal courts; and, it further contends that the Lanham Act’s anti-dilution provision amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The decision in this case will affect the rights of trademark holders, as well as the protections of those whose political, social, and artistic work utilizes the trademarks of others.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection for trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C).

VIP Products, LLC (“VIP”) sells dog toys that parody well-known beverage brands on its website, MyDogToy.com. VIP Prods. LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Props. at 1172. These products, called “Silly Squeakers,” are in the shape of beverage bottles and cans but contain dog puns and other alterations.

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS