News

A win for online speech in Patterson v. Meta

06 August 2025

On July 28, 2025, a New York state appellate court ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 bars claims against online platforms based on user-generated content made accessible through the platforms' algorithms. The holding represents a win for online speech advocates and aligns with the central argument of an amicus brief filed by Hogan Lovells attorneys Jasmeet Ahuja, Mark Brennan, Thomas Veitch, Erin Mizraki, and Alex Ervin on behalf of Chamber of Progress, Engine Advocacy, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

The appeal concerned a New York trial court's decision to allow certain claims to proceed against online platforms. In the wake of the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, survivors and family members of victims sued several groups, including online platforms. The Plaintiffs asserted claims of harm arising from the online platforms' algorithms. Despite the platforms' arguments that Section 230 bars imposing liability in this manner, the trial court concluded that the claims could proceed.

On appeal, in their amicus brief, Chamber of Progress, Engine Advocacy, and the Wikimedia Foundation explained the dangers of the trial court's decision and how it runs counter to the Congressional purpose behind Section 230. Section 230 prohibits treating an interactive computer service “as the publisher or speaker” of information posted by others on their services. Congress foresaw that exposing online platforms to this type of liability could make the Internet less safe and erode speech. In particular, this exposure might incentivize platforms to abandon content moderation, letting toxic content overflow, or strip away any speech that could give rise to controversy. Congress therefore made a choice to bar such claims.

The Fourth Department of the New York Appellate Division agreed with these arguments, marking a victory for Section 230 and its goal of preserving a safe and robust online speech environment. As the court stated in its decision, letting the trial court's ruling stand would “eviscerate the expressed purpose of [Section 230]” and could “result in the end of the Internet as we know it.” This is an important development that reaffirms the speech protections under Section 230.

Authored by Jasmeet Ahuja, Mark Brennan, Thomas Veitch, Erin Mizraki, and Alex Ervin.