Sometimes there’s a line between what businesses can do and what they should do.
Give me your take on whether the popular app Snapchat is struggling with that distinction.
On the "can-do" front, a Georgia judge has ruled that a 21-year-old federal law gives Snapchat immunity from blame after a metro Atlanta teen driver, Christal McGee, crashed as she allegedly intended to use the app's speed filter to show everyone that she was zooming over 100 miles per hour.
A man seriously injured when his car was struck in the Clayton County wreck sued both Snapchat and the teen driver.
Basically, his attorneys’ argument is that the Snapchat filter is an obvious set up for those famous last words: “Hey, watch this!”
Of course, you might also expect that people who drive super fast deserve, at the very least, the lion’s share of the blame, rather than it being pinned partly on an app maker that lets you superimpose puppy ears on your selfie or outfits you with a starry rainbow tongue.
The company argued that while it has a filter that lets users document their speed while taking selfies, it had zippo liability in the Georgia case. State court judge Josh Thacker in Spalding County agreed and recently dismissed the case before it got to trial.
He cited the federal Communications Decency Act, which lets companies avoid blame for much of what their users post or do online. That’s made it easier for the online world to become a wide-open bazaar of ideas, products, services, consumer reviews.
But with the good comes the bad, like sexual predators and illicit drug deals. The law has been used by companies from Myspace to Grindr, Backpage to America Online, eBay and, now, Airbnb, which is fighting a San Francisco law that bars short-term rental services from making money on local units not registered with the city. It also could become a defense for Twitter and Facebook as they face suits from families of terror victims who claim the companies haven't done enough to block terrorists from using their platforms.
The corporate arguments don’t always fly.
But Judge Thacker in Georgia concluded that Snapchat’s speed filter became just another form of user content and that “because the user in creating a post may choose the information included or excluded, that the speech is not Snapchat’s speech, but is ultimately the user’s speech ….”
‘We respectfully disagree’
Michael Terry, one of the attorneys representing the guy who was hit, had his assistant pass along this message to me: "We respectfully disagree with the judge's ruling …" that the Communications Decency Act provides Snapchat with complete immunity for its negligent actions, and and "we are currently evaluating an appeal."
Tim Lytton, a Georgia State University law professor, told me he thinks the judge "misframed the fundamental issue here."
“The fact that Snapchat and the speed filter are a communications platform is irrelevant to the plaintiff’s claim,” he said. The plaintiff is claiming the app and its feature encourage distracted driving, not the content of any posting.
Actually, the teen driver didn’t send a speed filter photo at the time of the collision, and Snapchat’s attorneys contend she wasn’t on the app at the time.
Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University in California, where he directs the High Tech Law Institute, told me the ruling in Georgia is consistent with others involving the law around the country. "In general, web services that allow users to communicate with each other online but then cause offline injuries aren't then liable for those offline injuries."
He also asks a questioned: “Why are we trying to hold someone else accountable for someone else who has done harm?”
Tempting deep pockets
Well, maybe a company is partly to blame. Or maybe the company has deep pockets, which makes them a tempting target for lawsuits.
Atlanta attorneys representing Snapchat in the case say that over 100 million people use the app every day, yet they know of maybe only two or three reports of vehicle accidents alleged to have been tied in any way to the speed filter. (I read about one in Tampa in which five people died, but early reports suggested that the driver posted with the speed filter nearly 10 minutes before the crash.)
But, still, I wonder: Is it really crucial for Snapchat’s business to give knuckleheads any excuse to go faster?
Shouldn’t the idea of a speed filter give pause to a thoughtful company, especially one that particularly serves teens and people in their early 20s?
Snapchat declined to comment publicly for this piece. The company still offers the speed filter.
Related column:
Find Matt on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/mattkempnercolumnist) and Twitter (@MattKempner) or email him at mkempner@ajc.com.
Other Kempner's Unofficial Business columns: http://www.myajc.com/news/opinion/matt-kempner-unofficial-business/j9F7R2mOGomS5FMjfhho2O/
