Google Says Pretty Much Everything Shields It From Being Sued Over Things Telegram Users Said

from the google-to-judge:-your-honor-what-even-is-this dept

An ambassador who last worked as a US ambassador more than two decades ago recently sued Apple and Google for… well, let's go to the tape. Apparently, it's somehow these two companies' fault that Telegram users make anti-Semitic comments and otherwise make "Ambassador Marc Ginsberg" (as the plaintiff refers to himself in his complaints) feel unsafe.

Ginsberg owns two phones -- one of each variety. That's why he's suing both Apple and Google. There's no indication Ginsberg has ever downloaded or used Telegram. Nor is there any indication he's even seen firsthand any of the content he's suing about. But in both lawsuits, he claims the mere existence of Telegram in app stores has personally harmed him and somehow devalued both of the phones he uses.

These lawsuits make no sense. And that's why Ginsberg has retained the representation of Keith Altman, last seen chucking lawsuit after lawsuit into federal courts claiming Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are directly responsible for real-life terrorist attacks. So far, the firms last associated with Altman and his particularly stupid brand of litigation have yet to secure a win at any level of the federal court system.

Google was last to be sued but the first to respond. And it raises the expected defenses, including the "the plaintiff has chosen the wrong defendant." (h/t John Roddy)

Google's motion to dismiss [PDF] starts with a few facts that make it pretty much unnecessary for anyone -- including the presiding judge -- to read any further. Here's the opener:

Plaintiffs Ambassador Marc Ginsberg and the organization he founded, the Coalition for a Safer Web, assert that several of Telegram’s 500 million third-party users have used Telegram to send messages that contain hateful rhetoric or promote extremism. Neither Telegram nor any of its users are parties to this case, and Plaintiffs have apparently not made any effort to pursue claims against them.

Instead, Plaintiffs have sued Google. They seek to hold Google liable for the content of messages exchanged through Telegram’s platform based on Google’s role as the operator of Google Play, an online platform where users can access a wide variety of digital content and download applications, including Telegram. Plaintiffs do not allege that Google played any role in creating, operating, or moderating content on Telegram, or that it contributed to the objectionable content disseminated by Telegram’s users. Plaintiffs nevertheless assert that Google should have removed the Telegram app from Google Play, and that it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and negligently inflicted emotional distress on Plaintiffs by failing to do so. While Plaintiffs’ goals of combating anti-Semitism and hate speech are important, they have chosen the wrong target for their campaign.

Even if Ginsberg had been slightly less moronic in his litigation, he still wouldn't have been likely to succeed. Telegram's main defense would be the same as Google's: Section 230 immunity applies. It would apply to Telegram if it was being sued for content generated by its users. And it doubly applies to Google, which is another step removed, since its only connection to Telegram is the fact that the app can be downloaded from Google's app store.

There's a recent case directly on point dealing with Section 230 immunity and app store moderation. That's the one Google quotes:

This Court recently applied Section 230 to bar a similar set of claims arising from Google’s alleged failure to remove third-party apps from Google Play. Coffee, 2021 WL 49338, at *6. The plaintiffs there alleged that Google violated state consumer protection laws by allowing certain video game apps to be published. The Court dismissed the claims as a matter of law, explaining that, because plaintiffs “[sought] an order requiring Google to screen apps offered through its Google Play store and exclude those containing [certain content],” they were demanding that Google engage in “conduct that [was] squarely within the role of a publisher.” Id. So too here: “Google cannot be held liable for merely allowing []developers to provide apps to users through the Google Play store, as ‘providing third parties with neutral tools to create web content is considered to be squarely within the protections of § 230.’”

But even if those two assertions are ignored, the case contains another massive failure. To seek redress, you must have an actionable injury. There's nothing here that indicates the Ambassador has suffered anything more than being subjected to bad legal advice.

Even setting aside immunity under Section 230, Plaintiffs still fail to state a claim. First, Plaintiffs lack standing to sue under the UCL. A UCL claim requires economic injury, specifically “lost money or property,” resulting from the alleged misconduct. Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 325-26 (2011). But Plaintiffs have alleged no such injury. Instead, they contend that Ginsberg’s phone supposedly declined in value because Google kept Telegram on Google Play. This theory makes no sense. Ginsberg does not even allege that he downloaded Telegram from Google Play or used the app on his device. He certainly offers no plausible explanation of how his phone could have lost value merely because the Telegram app remained available in Google Play for other people to download and use.

This suit should be tossed immediately. I'm sure the one against Apple will be met with the same defenses and the same early exit for the other target of Ginsberg's garbage litigation. It may suck to find out app users are saying bigoted things about Jews, but there's no legal action to be had here. Even if the former ambassador was able to discover the identities of those saying these things, a lot of it would be protected speech and very little of it would actually create a cause of action worth pursuing in court. The world can be a shitty place. Lobbing stupid sue-balls at the biggest targets you can find doesn't make it any better.

Filed Under: frivolous lawsuits, keith altman, liability, marc ginsberg
Companies: apple, google, telegram

Former US Ambassador Sues Apple Because Telegram Users Are Making Him Feel Scared [Update]

from the yeah-i-don't-know-either dept

Here's an interesting lawsuit, brought to you by some familiar names. And by "interesting," I mean "exceedingly stupid."

The lawsuit [PDF] was filed by "Ambassador Marc Ginsberg." Ginsberg last served as an ambassador in 1998. And yet, that title is being used to name him as the plaintiff. The defendant is Apple. In the mix (but not a defendant) is Telegram, a popular and often controversial messaging app that has served as a mouthpiece for alt-right personalities and others who have been banned from more mainstream social media services.

Ginsberg also runs the Coalition for A Safer Web (the co-plaintiff in this lawsuit), a non-profit whose mission is "inter alia, to promote new public/private partnerships to facilitate the expeditious removal of extremist and terrorist incitement and instruction content from social media platforms." The executive team at CSW includes Dr. Demetrick Pennie, a former Dallas Police sergeant and, according to the site, "leading CDA 230 expert."

Here's some of Dr. Pennie's 230 expertise at work:

In January, Dallas Police Sergeant Demetrick Pennie sued [PDF] Twitter, Google, and Facebook, claiming they were directly responsible for "radicalizing" Micah Johnson, who shot and killed five police officers in Dallas, Texas. According to Pennie, the social media companies actively allowed and encouraged terrorist use of their platforms to spread their message and attract participants.

Pennie's lawsuit was tossed because the court could find nothing linking terrorist organization Hamas to the Dallas shooter, despite Pennie's baseless proclamations otherwise. And his lawsuit was so off-base -- suing social media companies over the shooting of cops by a Dallas resident -- the court couldn't even be bothered to address the Section 230 ramifications. Pennie was represented in this case by Keith Altman of Excolo Law (often in conjunction with 1-800-LAW-FIRM), who has filed dozens of similarly stupid lawsuits trying to hold social media companies directly responsible for the violent acts of terrorists.

"Ambassador" Marc Ginsberg is suing Apple because of content Telegram users post. I'm not even kidding. And he's being represented by ex-Excolo litigator Keith Altman, who has moved on to Lento Law Group. But he's apparently still doing the same kind of litigation: suing the wrong parties over things other people are doing or have done.

The lawsuit features two plaintiffs (Ginsberg, Coalition for a Safer Web) because CSW employs Ginsberg and provides him with an iPhone. Apple is the defendant because it has refused to remove Telegram from its app store. The lawsuit is full of relevant facts and evidence, like this:

Currently, Defendant Apple sells the iPad Mini 5 for $399+, the 2020 iPad is $329+, the 2020 iPad Air is $599+, the 12.9-inch iPad Pro is $999+, the 11- inch iPad Pro is $799+, the 12.9-inch iPad Pro is $799, and the 11-inch iPad Pro is $649+.

And this:

Defendant Apple sells the Series 3 Apple Watch for a starting price of $199, the Apple Watch SE S5 for a starting price of $279, and an Apple Watch Series 6 for a starting price of $399.

Ginsberg claims the Telegram app violates Apple's developer guidelines and California's hate speech law and should be removed from the app store. Because Apple hasn't removed the app, it has been downloaded and used by people who engage in anti-Semitic speech. (Ginsberg is Jewish.) Because Telegram refuses to remove this content, it somehow leaks into Ginsberg's life through the app store -- even if Ginsberg has never downloaded the app or engaged with its users.

Defendant breached their duty by continuing to host Telegram on the App Store despite Defendant’s knowledge that Telegram was being used to incite violence including violence against African Americans and Jews.

Ambassador Ginsberg is a Jewish person whose professional work requires he maintain a presence in the public eye.

As a result of this Anti-Semitic campaign that was coordinated on the Telegram app, Ambassador Ginsberg is forced to live in apprehension of religiously motivated violence being perpetrated against him.

Ambassador Ginsberg’s fear of religious violence has caused him substantial emotional harm including depression and anxiety.

All of this may be true. But suing Apple over distressing content carried on Telegram isn't going to work. Apple doesn't have a duty to remove anything from its app store that may cause distress to anyone. If anyone's responsible for the racist content being spread on Telegram, it's the people posting it. That targeted harassment is possibly being aided by a chat app is concerning, but Apple isn't culpable for the actions of users of an app it allows customers to download and use.

And conclusory arguments like this aren't going to convince a judge otherwise.

If was foreseeable to Apple that by allowing Telegram to continue to be available on the App Store that Apple’s conduct could lead to fear of violence by individuals, such as Ambassador Ginsberg.

By failing to remove Telegram from the Apple App Store, Defendant has proximately caused Ambassador Ginsberg’s emotional distress.

Plaintiff Ambassador Ginsberg has suffered injuries in an amount that exceeds $75,000.

The arguments get even worse. Ginsberg claims Apple deceived him into purchasing an iPhone by promising to enforce its app store restrictions -- restrictions Ginsberg claims are violated by Telegram remaining available. But Telegram appears to comply with Apple's rules for apps relying on third-party content because Telegram allows users to block accounts/content, report violations/abusive accounts, and provides contact info for users seeking to have questions and concerns addressed.

Somehow, Telegram's continued presence in the app store has rendered Ginsberg's phone nearly useless.

Defendant’s failure to enforce their own guidelines against Telegram has caused Ambassador Ginsberg and CSW to suffer economic loss by being deprived of a key benefit of the purchase and use of the Apple iPhone XR.

I don't see how this makes it past a motion to dismiss. Ginsberg has a problem with Telegram users' content. So he's suing… Apple. Even assuming Apple is wrong to allow Telegram in its app store, Telegram is multi-platform. It has an Android app and a desktop version. The racist conspiracies Ginsberg believes are targeting him and causing him verifiable, recoupable harm could have originated on other platforms. Suing Apple into submission isn't going to stop the behavior that's bothering Ginsberg. It's only going to enrich Ginsberg.

And that appears to be the whole point of this lawsuit: to hit the biggest target with the broadest allegations and hope for a quick settlement. There's nothing in here that carries any legal weight or explains why Apple should be held responsible for the racist content that has (allegedly) caused Ginsberg distress.

UPDATE: Ginsberg has now sued Google for the same thing, claiming Google isn't protecting him from Telegram users' content by allowing it to remain in the Google Play store. That covers another outlet for Telegram, but once again, suing Google isn't going to stop Telegram users from posting anti-Semitic content or otherwise making Ginsberg feel unsafe.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, demetrick pennie, hate speech, intermediary liability, keith altman, liability, marc ginsberg, section 230
Companies: a safer web, apple, excolo law, google, lento law group, telegram

Families Of Orlando Shooting Victims Sue Twitter, Facebook, And Google For 'Supporting Terrorism'

from the worst-attempt-yet dept

Remember that time when Google, Twitter, and Facebook helped shoot up a nightclub in Orlando, Florida? Me neither. But attorney Keith Altman does. He's representing the families of three of the victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting in a lawsuit alleging [sigh] that these tech companies are somehow responsible for this act of terrorism.

The lawsuit, first reported by Fox News, was filed Monday in federal court in the eastern district of Michigan on behalf of the families of Tevin Crosby, Javier Jorge-Reyes and Juan Ramon Guerrero.

The lawsuit is the latest to target popular Internet services for making it too easy for the Islamic State to spread its message.

Like many similar lawsuits, this one is doomed to fail. First off, Section 230 immunizes these companies from being held responsible for third-party content. As this is certainly the first obstacle standing in the way of the suit's success, Altman has presented a very novel argument in hopes of avoiding it: ad placement is first party content, so immunity should be removed even when ads are attached to third-party content. From the filing [PDF]:

By specifically targeting advertisements based on viewers and content, Defendants are no longer simply passing through the content of third parties. Defendants are themselves creating content because Defendants exercise control over what advertisement to match with an ISIS posting. Furthermore, Defendants’ profits are enhanced by charging advertisers extra for targeting advertisements at viewers based upon knowledge of the viewer and the content being viewed.

[...]

Given that ad placement on videos requires Google’s specific approval of the video according to Google’s terms and conditions, any video which is associated with advertising has been approved by Google.

Because ads appear on the above video posted by ISIS, this means that Google specifically approved the video for monetization, Google earned revenue from each view of this video, and Google shared the revenue with ISIS. As a result, Google provides material support to ISIS.

That's the 230 dodge presented in this lawsuit. The same goes for Twitter and Facebook, which also place ads into users' streams -- although any sort of "attachment" is a matter of perception (directly proceeding/following "terrorist" third-party content, but not placed on the content). YouTube ads are pre-roll and are part of an automated process. The lawsuit claims ISIS is profiting from ad revenue, but that remains to be seen. Collecting ad revenue involves a verification process which actual terrorists may not be willing to participate in.

Going beyond this, the accusations are even more nebulous. The filing asserts that each of the named companies could "easily" do more to prevent use of their platforms by terrorists. To back up this assertion, the plaintiffs quote two tech experts (while portraying their thoughts as being representative of "most" experts) that say shutting down terrorist communications would be easy.

Most technology experts agree that Defendants could and should be doing more to stop ISIS from using its social network. “When Twitter says, ‘We can’t do this,’ I don’t believe that,” said Hany Farid, chairman of the computer science department at Dartmouth College. Mr. Farid, who co-developed a child pornography tracking system with Microsoft, says that the same technology could be applied to terror content, so long as companies were motivated to do so. “There’s no fundamental technology or engineering limitation,” he said. “This is a business or policy decision. Unless the companies have decided that they just can’t be bothered.”

According to Rita Katz, the director of SITE Intelligence Group, “Twitter is not doing enough. With the technology Twitter has, they can immediately stop these accounts, but they have done nothing to stop the dissemination and recruitment of lone wolf terrorists.”

Neither expert explains how speech can so easily be determined to be terrorism or how blanket filtering/account blocking wouldn't result in a sizable amount of collateral damage to innocent users. Mr. Farid, in particular, seems to believe sussing out terrorist-supporting speech should be as easy as flagging known child porn with distinct hashes. A tweet isn't a JPEG and speech can't be as easily determined to be harmful. It's easier said than done, but the argument here is the same as the FBI's argument in respect to "solving" the encryption "problem:" the smart people could figure this out. They're just not trying.

Altman's suggestion is even worse: just prevent Twitter accounts from being created that use any part of the handle of a previously-blocked account.

When an account is taken down by a Defendant, assuredly all such names are tracked by Defendants. It would be trivial to detect names that appear to have the same name root with a numerical suffix which is incremented. By limiting the ability to simply create a new account by incrementing a numerical suffix to one which has been deleted, this will disrupt the ability of individuals and organizations from using Defendants networks as an instrument for conducting terrorist operations.

It's all so easy when you're in the business of holding US-based tech companies responsible for acts of worldwide terrorism. First, this solves nothing. If the incremental option goes away, new accounts will be created with other names. Pretty soon, a great deal of innocuous handles will be auto-flagged by the system, preventing users from creating accounts with the handle they'd prefer -- including users who've never had anything to do with terrorism. Seriously a stupid idea, especially since the Twitter handle used in the example is "DriftOne" -- a completely innocuous handle the plaintiffs would like to see treated as inherently suspicious.

And thank your various gods this attorney isn't an elected official, law enforcement officer, or holding a supervisory role at an intelligence agency. Because this assertion would be less ridiculous and more frightening if delivered by any of the above:

Sending out large numbers of requests to connect with friends/followers from a newly created account is also suspicious activity. As shown in the “DriftOne” example above, it is clear that this individual must be keeping track of those previously connected. When an account is taken down and then re-established, the individual then uses an automated method to send out requests to all those members previously connected. Thus, accounts for ISIS and others can quickly reconstitute after being deleted. Such activity is suspicious on its face.

We've seen a lot of ridiculous lawsuits fired off in the wake of tragedies, but this one appears to be the worst one yet.

The lawsuit asks the court to sidestep Section 230 and order private companies to start restricting speech on their platforms. That's censorship and that's basically what the plaintiffs want -- along with fees, damages, etc. The lawsuit asks for an order finding that the named companies are violating the Anti-Terrorism Act and "grant other and further relief as justice requires."

The lawsuit's allegations are no more sound than the assertion of the Congressman quoted in support of the plaintiffs' extremely novel legal theories:

“Terrorists are using Twitter,” Rep. Poe added, and “[i]t seems like it’s a violation of the law.”

This basically sums up the lawsuit's allegations: this all "seems" wrong and the court needs to fix it. The shooting in Orlando was horrific and tragic. But this effort doesn't fix anything and asks for the government to step in and hold companies accountable for third-party postings under terrorism laws. Not only that, but it encourages the government to pressure these companies into proactive censorship based on little more than some half-baked assumptions about how the platforms work and what tech fixes they could conceivably apply with minimal collateral damage.

Filed Under: cda 230, isis, keith altman, material support for terrorism, omar mateen, orlando, pulse nightclub, section 230, terrorism, victims
Companies: facebook, google, twitter