Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#31

Post by GavinMcG » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

This is strictly a ruling that the company can be sued. They had moved for dismissal, claiming that the facts as alleged couldn't possibly support a finding of liability, and the appeals court here is only saying that the plaintiffs can proceed to gather facts by getting documents from Snap, deposing some of their employees, etc.

This ruling isn't about whether Snap did or didn't play a role: just that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible argument that they played a role, and are entitled to build their case.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#32

Post by hollerith » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #21

akersten wrote: post #18

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.) By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice. Here's Texas, for example: Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: ... (2) acting with intent to promote or as…

This is a civil suit, so criminal law is a peripheral issue. In particular, in a civil suit, most defendants found liable (i.e., most defendants who lose) have comitted no crime.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#33

Post by sebastialonso » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #12

spillguard wrote: post #7

Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation? Edit: Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action: https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68 https://youtu.be…

I think if a social media organization encouraged a #highspeedometer hashtag they could also be liable. It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's that Snapchat set up a defacto social incentive for speeding.

IMO this is an inconsistent approach of placing responsability. What about regular people who start viral challenges that might get people killed? Should they also be held responsible? If the answer is no (in the real world, the answer is no), then why should Snapchat should be held accountable?

I cannot help the feel that this "social incentive" argument is the adult cousin of "but everyone's doing it, mom!".

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#34

Post by burkaman » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:21 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #18

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.) By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

This is a fairly narrow decision. The lower court said Snapchat was immune under Section 230 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230), and the appeals court is saying no, the issue here is a feature of Snapchat itself, not user generated content, so Section 230 doesn't apply, and they sent it back to the lower court to try again.

This is the correct decision. If the suit is going to be dismissed, it needs to be dismissed on valid grounds. If there is no valid reason then it must continue towards trial, where it could still fail on the merits.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#35

Post by GavinMcG » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #32

GavinMcG wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice. Here's Texas, for example: Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: ... (2) acting with intent to promote or as…

This is a civil suit, so criminal law is a peripheral issue. In particular, in a civil suit, most defendants found liable (i.e., most defendants who lose) have comitted no crime .

Yeah, but the commenter had asked "Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?"

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#36

Post by wussboy » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #18

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.) By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

Are technology companies immune to all social responsibility? It sounds like you think they might be. But can we not think of a scenario where that would not be true?

For example, if Snapchat makes a filter that detects blood and "counts kills" as you stab people, are they not responsible for any actions that result? It sounds like you might claim "no", because "I could kill someone on my own if I wanted".

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#37

Post by OGWhales » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #9

stevewodil wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A filter that displays your current speed has no inherent danger and does not encourage anything in and of itself. Idiots that decide to drive over 100mph in a car not designed for high speeds, on public roads, and with no proper training just to capture a cool number on a screen are the ones who should be put in jail. Should we jail the person that invented the speedometer as well?

A speedometer does the opposite of encouraging unsafe behavior by alerting you to the unsafeness of that behavior. The filter in question encouraged unsafe behavior by incentivizing such behavior for social engagement, however absurd you think that incentivization is personally. This is a bit like saying a frat house hazing isn't wrong because no one actually makes the kids drink, the social incentive remains dangero…

>This is a bit like saying a frat house hazing isn't wrong because no one actually makes the kids drink, the social incentive remains dangerous.

Frats typically do force/heavily encourage members to drink... especially as part of the hazing process for new members.

If it's just all people drinking without being forced into it, that's truly no different than a regular college party, which also provides social incentives to act dangerously but is pretty different from hazing with alcohol.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#38

Post by sebastialonso » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #25

GavinMcG wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice. Here's Texas, for example: Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: ... (2) acting with intent to promote or as…

Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough. After all, there's nothing wrong with being fast and furious on a racing track ;)

I feel this is exactly why in America you have to write "content might be hot" is a recipient made evidently and exclusively for hot beverages.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#39

Post by alexggordon » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

This reminds me of a story from college, regarding a business law class (US laws mostly). This class was interesting for a variety of reasons, but also pretty humorous as the professor was a full time lawyer, and taught the class because he enjoyed educating people. Generally, I've enjoyed the classes most where the professor brought real world experience to the podium and this class fit that bill perfectly.

As part of the class we went over a variety of law case studies. The professor had a bit of a schtick or joke where he would ask "can they sue?"--and the answer was always yes. There was no plausible case you could not litigate. The followup question was always where the details were. "Will this case get thrown out?" or "Will they win" was usually where the discussion occurred. The reason for that, is in US law, the bar is incredibly low for being able to litigate a case.

This case is no different. According to the reversal[0], effectively the court found it's plausible that the known reward system snapchat has (popularity, endorphins, whatever you want to call it) in combination with the speed filter, is not unrelated to the accident. That's all they said, and I believe that's the correct decision--they aren't saying Snap is to blame--just that the very high bar to throw out a case has not been met.

Personally, wouldn't read too much past that. Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.

[0] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/20...

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#40

Post by varsketiz » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

sebastialonso wrote: post #33

stinkytaco wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if a social media organization encouraged a #highspeedometer hashtag they could also be liable. It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's that Snapchat set up a defacto social incentive for speeding.

IMO this is an inconsistent approach of placing responsability. What about regular people who start viral challenges that might get people killed? Should they also be held responsible? If the answer is no (in the real world, the answer is no), then why should Snapchat should be held accountable? I cannot help the feel that this "social incentive" argument is the adult cousin of "but everyone's doing it, mom!".

I'm not so sure the real world answer is "no". What are you basing it on? Why are organisations that promote dangerous activities (e.g. paragliding, cycling challenges) asking me to sign liability waivers? I think this is evidence against your claim in the real world.