Gonzalez v. Google LLC

PRELIMINARY PRINT

Volume 598 U. S. Part 2

Pages 617–622

OFFICIAL REPORTS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT

May 18, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF

reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before

the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter

of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,

pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

OCTOBER TERM, 2022 617

Syllabus

GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for

the ninth circuit

No. 21–1333. Argued February 21, 2023—Decided May 18, 2023

In 2015, Nohemi Gonzalez, a U. S. citizen, was killed in a set of coordinated

terrorist attacks carried out across Paris, France, under the direction of

the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Gonzalez's parents and

brothers sued Google LLC under 18 U. S. C. § 2333(a) and (d)(2), alleging

that Google was both directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist

attack that killed Gonzalez. With regard to their secondary-liability

claims under § 2333(d)(2), plaintiffs alleged that Google aided and abet-

ted and conspired with ISIS through ISIS' use of YouTube, which

Google owns and operates. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs'

complaint for failure to state a claim, though it offered plaintiffs leave

to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs opted to appeal, and the Ninth

Circuit affrmed in a consolidated opinion that the Court also addressed

in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471. With regard to this case,

Page Proof Pending Publication

the Ninth Circuit held that most of plaintiffs' claims were barred by

§ 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The sole exceptions

were claims based on allegations that YouTube maintained a revenue-

sharing system through which Google approved ISIS videos and shared

revenue with ISIS; however, the court held that those allegations failed

to state a viable claim in any event. Plaintiffs sought review in this

Court of the Ninth Circuit's application of § 230 but not of that court's

holdings regarding the revenue-sharing claims.

Held: The Court declines to address the application of § 230 to a complaint

that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief. The

secondary-liability claims here are materially identical to those in the

Twitter plaintiffs' complaint, and thus it appears to follow from the hold-

ing of that case that the complaint here fails to state a claim for aiding

and abetting under § 2333(d)(2). The remainder of plaintiffs' claims

here may be barred by the Ninth Circuit's unchallenged holdings below.

Accordingly, the Court remands the case for the Ninth Circuit to con-

sider plaintiffs' complaint in light of this Court's decision in Twitter.

Pp. 619–622.

2 F. 4th 871, vacated and remanded.

Eric Schnapper argued the cause for petitioners. With

him on the briefs were Robert J. Tolchin and Keith L. Altman.

618 GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

Counsel

Deputy Solicitor General Stewart argued the cause for the

United States as amicus curiae urging vacatur. With him

on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Fletcher, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General Granston, Caroline A. Flynn,

and Daniel Tenny.

Lisa S. Blatt argued the cause for respondent. With her

on the brief were Sarah M. Harris, Aaron Z. Roper, Michael

W. McConnell, Steffen N. Johnson, Brian M. Willen, Lauren

Gallo White, Cassandra Knight, and Nora Puckett.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the State of Ten-

nessee et al. by Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General of Tennessee, Andrée

Blumstein, Solicitor General, Gabriel Krimm, Assistant Solicitor General,

and J. Matthew Rice, and by the Attorneys General for their respective

jurisdictions as follows: Steve Marshall of Alabama, Treg R. Taylor of

Alaska, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Rob Bonta of California, Phil Weiser

of Colorado, William Tong of Connecticut, Karl A. Racine of the District

of Columbia, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Kwame Raoul of Illinois, The-

odore E. Rokita of Indiana, Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, Jeff Landry of

Page Proof Pending Publication

Louisiana, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, Keith Ellison of Minnesota,

Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Doug Peterson of Nebraska, John M. Formella

of New Hampshire, Matthew J. Platkin of New Jersey, Letitia James of

New York, Joshua H. Stein of Pennsylvania, Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon,

Peter F. Neronha of Rhode Island, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Mark

Vargo of South Dakota, Susanne R. Young of Vermont, and Jason S. Miy-

ares of Virginia; for the State of Texas by Ken Paxton, Attorney General,

Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General, Judd E. Stone II, Solicitor

General, Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Bill Davis,

Deputy Solicitor General, and Ryan S. Baasch and Kyle D. Highful, As-

sistant Solicitors General; for the American Association for Justice by Jef-

frey R. White and Tad Thomas; for America's Future et al. by William J.

Olson, Jeremiah L. Morgan, Robert J. Olson, and J. Mark Brewer; for the

Center for Renewing America, Inc., by Andrei D. Popovici; for the Coun-

ter Extremism Project et al. by Kimberly R. Lambert Adams; for the

Cyber Civil Rights Initiative et al. by Jeffrey A. Mandell and David

P. Hollander; for the Electronic Privacy Information Center by Alan But-

ler; for Former National Security Offcials by Mary B. McCord, pro se,

Rupa Bhattacharyya, and Kelsi Brown Corkran; for Free Speech for Peo-

ple by Courtney Hostetler, Ronald A. Fein, John C. Bonifaz, and Ben T.

Clements; for the Institute for Free Speech et al. by Endel Kolde, Alan

Gura, and Adam Candeub, pro se; for the National Center on Sexual Exploi-

tation et al. by Peter A. Gentala, Benjamin W. Bull, and Christen M. Price;

Cite as: 598 U. S. 617 (2023) 619

Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

In 2015, ISIS terrorists unleashed a set of coordinated

attacks across Paris, France, killing 130 victims, including

and for Sen. Josh Hawley by Mr. Hawley, pro se. Jolina C. Cuaresma

fled a brief of amici curiae for Common Sense Media et al. urging vacatur.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for ACT | The App

Association by Brian E. Scarpelli; for the American Action Forum by

Steven A. Engel, Michael H. McGinley, and Christopher J. Merken; for

the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Jennifer Stisa Granick,

David D. Cole, and Jennesa Calvo-Friedman; for the Anti-Defamation

League by Steven M. Freeman; for Article 19: Global Campaign for Free

Expression and International Justice at the University of California, Ir-

vine School of Law by Robert P. Latham and Marc Fuller; for the Authors

Alliance et al. by Benjamin W. Berkowitz and Steven A. Hirsch; for Auto-

mattic Inc. by Mark A. Lemley and Joseph C. Gratz; for the Bipartisan

Policy Center by Lynn B. Oberlander; for the Cato Institute et al. by

Anastasia P. Boden; for the Center for Democracy & Technology et al. by

Gregory Nojeim; for the Center for Growth and Opportunity et al. by

Andrew C. Nichols; for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of

Page Proof Pending Publication

America by Michael R. Dreeben, Jason Zarrow, and Anton Metlitsky; for

the Chamber of Progress et al. by Robert Corn-Revere, Adam S. Sieff,

and Ambika Kumar; for the Computer & Communications Industry Asso-

ciation et al. by William M. Jay, Matthew Schruers, Alexandra Stern-

burg, and Carl Szabo; for Craigslist, Inc., by Peter Karanjia and Ilana H.

Eisenstein; for the Developers Alliance by James H. Hulme and Bruce

Gustafson; for the Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. by Aaron Mackey

and Sophia Cope; for Information Science Scholars by Michael S. Kwun;

for the Internet Infrastructure Coalition by Andrew P. Bridges and Todd

R. Gregorian; for Internet Law Scholars by Michael J. Gottlieb, Aaron E.

Nathan, and Eugene Volokh, pro se; for the Internet Society by Raechel

Keay Kummer; for Internet Works et al. by John F. Bash, Andrew H.

Schapiro, Margret Caruso, and Rachel Herrick Kassabian; for the Knight

First Amendment Institute at Columbia University by Scott Wilkens,

Alex Abdo, and Jameel Jaffer; for the Marketplace Industry Association

et al. by Albert Giang; for Meta Platforms, Inc., by Paul D. Clement,

Erin E. Murphy, Jennifer Newstead, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Amir C.

Tayrani, Russell B. Balikian, Allyson N. Ho, and Brad G. Hubbard; for

Microsoft Corp. by E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Rachel G. Shalev, and Eric A.

Shumsky; for National Security Experts by Christopher J. Wright and

John R. Grimm; for the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human

Rights by Jonathan Y. Ellis; for the Product Liability Advisory Council,

Inc., by Andrew J. Pincus and Archis A. Parasharami; for the Progres-

620 GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

Per Curiam

Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U. S. citizen.1 Gonzalez's

parents and brothers then sued Google LLC, under 18

sive Policy Institute by Roy T. Englert, Jr., and Jeffrey C. Thalhofer; for

Public Knowledge by Harold Feld; for the Reason Foundation by Erik S.

Jaffe and Manuel S. Klausner; for Reddit, Inc., et al. by Michael R. Huston;

for the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. by David A.

O'Neil and Bruce D. Brown; for Scholars of Civil Rights and Social Justice

by Paul W. Hughes and Andrew Lyons-Berg; for the Software & Informa-

tion Industry Association by Tod Cohen and Christopher A. Mohr; for Tech-

Freedom by Corbin K. Barthold; for the Trust & Safety Foundation by

Mark W. Brennan; for Twitter, Inc., by Seth P. Waxman, Patrick J. Carome,

Ari Holtzblatt, Claire H. Chung, and Rishita Apsani; for the Washington

Legal Foundation by John M. Masslon II and Cory L. Andrews; for the Wik-

imedia Foundation by Kathleen R. Hartnett; for Yelp Inc., by Anna-Rose

Mathieson; for ZipRecruiter, Inc., et al. by Roman Martinez and Charles S.

Dameron; for Eric Goldman by Venkat Balasubramani; for Ginger Zhe Jin

et al. by Scott A. Keller, Steven P. Lehotsky, and Drew F. Waldbeser; and for

Sen. Ron Wyden et al. by Ginger D. Anders and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

Briefs of amici curiae were fled for Child USA by Marci A. Hamilton;

Page Proof Pending Publication

for the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School

of Law by Edward P. Howard and Karl M. Manheim; for the CITP Tech

Policy Clinic by Jeremy S. Spiegel; for Economists by Jennifer B. Tatel;

for Fairplay by Angela J. Campbell; for Free Press Action by Kevin K. Rus-

sell and Erica Oleszczuk Evans; for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent

Gun Violence by Benjamin D. Battles, Agatha M. Cole, and J. Adam Skaggs;

for the Integrity Institute et al. by Jim Davy; for the Lawyers' Committee

for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by Damon Hewitt, Jon Greenbaum,

Dariely Rodriguez, and David Brody; for the Liberty Justice Center by

Daniel R. Suhr; for the National Police Association, Inc., et al. by James

Bopp, Jr., and Richard E. Coleson; for Seattle School Dist. No. 1 et al. by

Derek W. Loeser, Benjamin B. Gould, and Gregory C. Narver; for the

Zionist Organization of America et al. by Susan B. Tuchman and Clifford

A. Rieders; for Tawainna Anderson et al. by Larry Bendesky and Jeffrey

P. Goodman; for Sen. Ted Cruz et al. by C. Boyden Gray, R. Trent McCot-

ter, Jonathan Berry, and Gene P. Hamilton; for Maj. Gen. Tamir Hayman

et al. by David Jaroslawicz; for M. Chris Riley et al. by Catherine R.

Gellis; and for Rick Santorum et al. by Gene C. Schaerr, Donald M. Falk,

H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Hannah C. Smith, and Kathryn E. Tarbert.

1

“ISIS” is shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. In some

form or another, it has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization

since 2004; ISIS has also been known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the

Levant, al Qaeda in Iraq, and the al-Zarqawi Network.

Cite as: 598 U. S. 617 (2023) 621

Per Curiam

U. S. C. §§ 2333(a) and (d)(2), alleging that Google was both

directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist attack that

killed Gonzalez.2 For their secondary-liability claims, plain-

tiffs alleged that Google aided and abetted and conspired

with ISIS. All of their claims broadly center on the use of

YouTube, which Google owns and operates, by ISIS and

ISIS supporters.

The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for fail-

ure to state a claim, though it offered plaintiffs leave to

amend their complaint. Instead, plaintiffs stood on their

complaint and appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affrmed in a

consolidated opinion that we also addressed in Twitter, Inc.

v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471 (2023). 2 F. 4th 871 (2021). With

respect to this case, the Ninth Circuit held that most of the

plaintiffs' claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications

Decency Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C. § 230(c)(1).

The sole exceptions were plaintiffs' direct- and secondary-

Page Proof Pending Publication

liability claims based on allegations that Google approved

ISIS videos for advertisements and then shared proceeds

with ISIS through YouTube's revenue-sharing system. The

Ninth Circuit held that these potential claims were not

barred by § 230, but that plaintiffs' allegations failed to state

a viable claim in any event.

2

Title 18 U. S. C. § 2333(a) provides: “Any national of the United States

injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of

international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue

therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall

recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit,

including attorney's fees.” Section 2333(d)(2) provides: “In an action

under subsection (a) for an injury arising from an act of international ter-

rorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been

designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. 1189), as of the date on which

such act of international terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized,

liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by know-

ingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person

who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

622 GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

Per Curiam

We granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's appli-

cation of § 230. See 598 U. S. ––– (2022). Plaintiffs did not

seek review of the Ninth Circuit's holdings regarding their

revenue-sharing claims. In light of those unchallenged hold-

ings and our disposition of Twitter, on which we also granted

certiorari and in which we today reverse the Ninth Circuit's

judgment, it has become clear that plaintiffs' complaint—

independent of § 230—states little if any claim for relief.

As plaintiffs concede, the allegations underlying their

secondary-liability claims are materially identical to those at

issue in Twitter. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 58. Since we hold

that the complaint in that case fails to state a claim for aiding

and abetting under § 2333(d)(2), it appears to follow that the

complaint here likewise fails to state such a claim. And, in

discussing plaintiffs' revenue-sharing claims, the Ninth Cir-

cuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged neither that “Google

reached an agreement with ISIS,” as required for conspiracy

liability, nor that Google's acts were “intended to intimidate

Page Proof Pending Publication

or coerce a civilian population, or to infuence or affect a

government,” as required for a direct-liability claim under

§ 2333(a). 2 F. 4th, at 901, 907. Perhaps for that reason,

at oral argument, plaintiffs only suggested that they should

receive leave to amend their complaint if we were to reverse

and remand in Twitter. Tr. of Oral Arg. 58, 163.

We need not resolve either the viability of plaintiffs' claims

as a whole or whether plaintiffs should receive further leave

to amend. Rather, we think it suffcient to acknowledge

that much (if not all) of plaintiffs' complaint seems to fail

under either our decision in Twitter or the Ninth Circuit's

unchallenged holdings below. We therefore decline to ad-

dress the application of § 230 to a complaint that appears to

state little, if any, plausible claim for relief. Instead, we va-

cate the judgment below and remand the case for the Ninth

Circuit to consider plaintiffs' complaint in light of our deci-

sion in Twitter.

It is so ordered.

Reporter’s Note

The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication

and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination

makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of

publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions

for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of

the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and

Page Proof Pending Publication

who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was

argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may

include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant

punctuation. The following additional edits were made:

p. 617, line 12, “that also” is replaced with “that the Court also”

p. 617, line 13, “Twitter'' is replaced with “in Twitter”

p. 621, line 12, “that also” is replaced with “that we also”

p. 621, line 12, “addressed Twitter'' is replaced with “addressed in Twitter”