Connection lost
Server error
Gonzalez v. Google, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiffs sued Google under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging YouTube provided material support to ISIS. The court dismissed the claims, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes platforms from liability for hosting and algorithmically recommending third-party content, even if it’s terrorist-related.
Legal Significance: Reinforces the broad immunity of Section 230, clarifying that providing neutral, algorithmic tools for content recommendation does not make an interactive computer service a ‘developer’ of third-party content, thus preserving immunity even against claims of material support for terrorism.
Gonzalez v. Google, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, family members of a victim killed in the 2015 ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, sued Google, LLC. They alleged that Google, through its YouTube platform, provided material support to ISIS in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The complaint asserted that Google knowingly permitted ISIS to use YouTube to post videos for recruitment, incitement, and operational planning. Plaintiffs further alleged that Google’s conduct went beyond neutral hosting, claiming Google became an ‘information content provider’ (ICP) by using algorithms to affirmatively recommend ISIS-related videos to users, thereby contributing to the content’s illegality. A new theory also alleged Google shared advertising revenue with ISIS. The plaintiffs argued this conduct, including the algorithmic recommendations and alleged revenue sharing, was a proximate cause of the Paris attacks that led to their family member’s death. Google moved to dismiss, arguing its conduct was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and that the plaintiffs failed to plead proximate cause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunize an interactive computer service from liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act for hosting and using neutral algorithms to recommend terrorist-related content posted by a third party?
Yes. The court held that Google is immune under § 230(c)(1) because Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat n
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunize an interactive computer service from liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act for hosting and using neutral algorithms to recommend terrorist-related content posted by a third party?
Conclusion
This decision significantly reinforces the breadth of CDA § 230 immunity, extending Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostr
Legal Rule
Under § 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, an interactive computer service Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
Legal Analysis
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding them barred by Section 230 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Section 230(c)(1) immunizes platforms like Google from Anti-Terrorism Act liability for