Thread by @cagoldberglaw

One thing i get asked a lot is if reforming Section 230 will result in a spate of new lawsuits.

The question assumes 1) lawsuits are a bad thing and 2) a bunch of new lawsuits = frivolous new lawsuits.

Reforming Section 230 hopefully WILL result in new lawsuits. That's a good thing. Because there are a ton of people who've suffered serious harms -- CSAM, sextortion, wrongful death of loved ones -- as a result of some specific tech platforms.

Imagine if there was a law that you couldn't sue car companies and that law was finally lifted. You can imagine that people who were in accidents because of faulty breaks, exploding airbags, and no seatbelts, would want their day in court.

Most folks harmed by tech products in the past, won't be able to bring cases because of statute of limitations.

One of the worst parts about section 230 is that b/c there's been almost no litigation by users against tech products since the internet was invented,

there's also almost no case law which would guide tech companies about what harms are allowed and which ones will get them in big trouble, what the standard of care should be in the industry when it comes to responding to users, keeping predators off their platform,

removing illegal content, complying with their own terms of use. We have 30 years of case law to make up for.

Our courts were literally built for injured people to hold wrongdoers accountable and make them pay for the harm. We want harmed people to use our courts.

The unnatural thing has been this regulation (Section 230) sparing the tech industry legal responsibility.

Our legal system is already built to keep frivolous claims out of court.

There are sanctions against attorneys who bring meritless cases and as a matter of

business, the two main payment models for law firms both disincentivize crappy cases from coming forward -- lawyers working contingency don't get paid if they can't recover $$ for their client. And individuals are disincentivized to pay hourly legal bills for crappy cases.

And also, we still have all the regular reasons why most speech-based cases will fail -- 1st amendment, anti-slapp, Twiqbal pleading standards.

Will people like me bring more cases? You bet. And they'll be really

important cases involving situations where lives were ruined b/c the platform knowingly was allowing CSAM, rapists to use their dating site, sextortion.

These lawsuits are for the net good. They bring justice to the victims and they pressure reform in the industry to prevent

similar abuses. Also, there's no need to fear for the small platforms who Section 230 defenders are worried about getting eaten up by litigation. If they are doing so much harm then they should be put out of business anyway. This argument doesn't fly in any other industry.

My 13 person law firm is just as responsible for potential malpractice claims as a 1000 lawyer firm. Absolutely, I'd be far more impacted by a lawsuit than a big firm, but it makes me all the more conscientious to provide excellence to my clients and there's a big insurance

industry for this very purpose! Being responsible for serious harms to users incentivizes new start-ups to build in safety features from the ground up and for investors to make sure they do.

So bring on the litigation!! It's a good thing.

*Also, I mention above there's no case law that would guide platforms about what is and isn't allowed. I should add that b/c of Section 230 almost everything allowed as long as a user -- and not the platform -- does it.