Supreme Court Declines Snapchat Case About Alleged Teen Sex Abuse

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying current federal law gives social media platforms ‘a get-out-of-jail free card.’
Supreme Court Declines Snapchat Case About Alleged Teen Sex Abuse
FILE PHOTO: The Snapchat messaging application as seen on a smart phone screen on Aug. 3, 2017. (REUTERS/Thomas White/File)
Matthew Vadum
7/2/2024
Updated:
7/2/2024
0:00

The Supreme Court declined on July 2 to take up the case of a Texas teenager who wanted to revive his unsuccessful lawsuit that accused social media platform Snapchat of failing to protect its young users from sexual predators.

The Supreme Court did not provide reasons for its decision.

The petitioner was not identified by name in court documents because he was a minor when the lawsuit was initiated.

Lower courts threw out the case, finding that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act barred lawsuits against internet companies for liability for users’ content. The case is John Doe v. Snap Inc.

Snap Inc. does business as Snapchat LLC and Snap LLC.

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Thomas recounted that when the petitioner was 15 years old, “his science teacher groomed him for a sexual relationship.”

The abuse came to light after the petitioner overdosed on prescription drugs that the teacher had supplied.

“The teacher initially seduced Doe by sending him explicit content on Snapchat, a social-media platform built around the feature of ephemeral, self-deleting messages,” the justice wrote.

The petitioner argued that the design of Snapchat encourages minors to misstate their age to access the website and allows “adults to prey upon them through the self-deleting message feature.”

By refusing to take up the case, the Supreme Court “chooses not to address whether social-media platforms—some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world—can be held responsible for their own misconduct,” he wrote.

“The question whether [Section] 230 immunizes platforms for their own conduct warrants the Court’s review,” Justice Thomas wrote.

There will be other opportunities to address the scope of Section 230, “but, make no mistake, about it—there is danger in delay. Social media platforms have increasingly used [Section] 230 as a get-out-of-jail free card.”

The new decision came in a lengthy list of orders in ongoing cases that the Court issued the day after it finished issuing opinions in all the argued cases for the 2023-2024 term.

The justices now leave town for their summer recess. The Court will resume hearing cases on the first Monday in October.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.