In Gonzalez v. Google LLC, will the Supreme Court rule that Section 230 does not bar the plaintiff's non-revenue sharing claims against Google?

Started Feb 17, 2023 06:00PM UTC
Closed May 18, 2023 02:25PM UTC

Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Section 230), which was added as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, "provides limited federal immunity to providers and users of interactive computer services" (Congressional Research Service, Cornell - Section 230). Various parties related to Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, sued Google claiming, among other things, that YouTube enabled terrorists to recruit members and spread propaganda (Oyez). The district court and Ninth Circuit both found that Section 230 barred the claims against Google that were not premised on revenue-sharing exercised by the company (Casetext, SCOTUSblog). The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision in its 2022 term, but if it does not, the question will close as "No." If the Court decides this case without addressing this question's particular issue of law, the question will close as "No."

Confused? Check our FAQ or ask us for help. To learn more about Good Judgment and Superforecasting, click here.

To learn more about how you can become a Superforecaster, see hereFor other posts from our Insights blog, click here.

The question closed "No" with a closing date of 18 May 2023.

See our FAQ to learn about how we resolve questions and how scores are calculated.

Possible Answer Correct? Final Crowd Forecast
Yes 4.40%
No 95.60%

Crowd Forecast Profile

Participation Level
Number of Forecasters 25
Average for questions older than 6 months: 203
Number of Forecasts 64
Average for questions older than 6 months: 579
Participants in this question vs. all forecasters average

Most Accurate

Relative Brier Score


Recent Consensus, Probability Over Time

Tip: Mention someone by typing @username