Section 230 of the Communications Act limits the federal legal liability of internet service providers and platforms. This law has been central to protecting freedom of expression online. Under Section 230, online service providers are not treated as the publishers of content provided by third party users. The provisions of Section 230 have shaped the development and growth of the modern internet.

Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Two provisions of Section 230 are of particular substantive importance—Section 230(c)(1) and Section 230(c)(2).

Section 230(c)(1) specifies that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” A 1997 court case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., interpreted Section 230(c)(1) to prohibit “lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.” The Zeran case barred a defamation claim brought by the plaintiffs alleging that AOL refused to remove a scandalous advertisement. Subsequent court cases have continued to broadly interpret the scope of Section 230(c)(1).

Section 230(c)(2) specifies that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action taken voluntarily in good faith to restrict access to “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material.

Section 230 contains several exceptions. The statute does not apply to intellectual property laws, federal criminal laws, certain sex trafficking offenses, and state laws that are consistent with Section 230.

Courts have adopted a broad interpretation to Section 230 in lawsuits, resulting in immunity for social media companies and others in a number of situations. Politicians have argued that Section 230 federal immunity has been abused by giant tech companies.

The 2023 Supreme Court case Gonzalez v. Google considered whether Section 230 immunity should apply to internet service providers for content posted on their platforms by third party users when the providers are utilizing algorithms to target content toward certain users. The plaintiffs sued Google for the death of their daughter in the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. They alleged that Google allowed targeted content recommendations about terrorism to spread, leading certain users toward ISIS recruitment videos that ultimately resulted in their daughter’s death. While the case was closely watched, the Supreme Court declined to directly address the Section 230 issues. For now, this means that any potential reforms to Section 230 will be left in the hands of Congress.

Another Supreme Court case that was closely watched for implications to internet service provider liability was the 2023 case Twitter v. Taamneh. Similar to Gonzalez v. Google, the plaintiffs alleged that social media companies facilitated the spread of terrorist content that ultimately led to their son’s death in a terrorist attack on an Istanbul nightclub. The court decided not to impose secondary liability on tech companies for failing to prevent the recruitment of terrorists.

The future of Section 230 immunity for online platforms remains unclear. Proponents argue that Section 230 has protected the internet’s growth and the promotion of open discourse and free expression. They also argue that if internet platforms were too readily punished for the speech of other users, the internet would end up heavily censored like in many non-democratic countries. Section 230’s opponents argue that Section 230 has allowed internet harassment, sexual exploitation, disinformation, violent content, and hate speech to harm users without anyone being held accountable.