How an obscure legal doctrine called the Henderson test could weaken Section 230 and change free speech on the internet
The U.S. Supreme Court against a blue sky in Washington, D.C., US. Photographer: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg
Bloomberg Creative | Bloomberg Creative Photos | Getty Images
A legal test that Google’s lawyer told the Supreme Court was roughly “96% correct” could drastically undermine the liability shield that the company and other tech platforms have relied on for decades, according to several experts who advocate for upholding the law to the highest degree.
The so-called “Henderson test” would significantly weaken the power of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, several experts said in conversations and briefings following oral arguments in the case Gonzalez v. Google. Some of those who criticized Google’s concession even work for groups backed by the company.
Section 230 is the statute that protects tech platforms’ ability to host material from users — like social media posts, uploaded video and audio files, and comments — without being held legally liable for their content. It also allows platforms to moderate their services and remove posts they consider objectionable.
The law is central to the question that will be decided by the Supreme Court in the Gonzalez case, which asks whether platforms like Google’s YouTube can be held responsible for algorithmicaly recommending user posts that seem to endorse or promote terrorism.
In arguments on Tuesday, the justices seemed hesitant to issue a ruling that would overhaul Section 230.
But even if they avoid commenting on that law, they could still issue caveats that change the way it’s enforced, or clear a path for changing the law in the future.
What is the Henderson test?
One way the Supreme Court could undercut Section 230 is by endorsing the Henderson test, some advocates believe. Ironically, Google’s own lawyers may have given the court more confidence to endorse this test, if it chooses to do so.
The Henderson test came about from a November ruling by the Fourth Circuit appeals court in Henderson v. The Source for Public Data. The plaintiffs in that case sued a group of companies that collect public information about individuals, like criminal records, voting records and driving information, then put in a database that they sell to third parties. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to maintain accurate information, and by providing inaccurate information to a potential employer.
A lower court ruled that Section 230 barred the claims, but the appeals court overturned that decision.
The appeals court wrote that for Section 230 protection to apply, “we require that liability attach to the defendant on account of some improper content within their publication.”
In this case, it wasn’t the content itself that was at fault, but how the company chose to present it.
The court also ruled Public Data was responsible for the content because it decided how to present it, even though the information was pulled from other sources. The court said it’s plausible that some of the information Public Data sent to one of the plaintiff’s potential employers was “inaccurate because it omitted or summarized information in a way that made it misleading.” In other words, once Public Data made changes to the information it pulled, it became an information content provider.
Should the Supreme Court endorse the Henderson ruling, it would effectively “moot Section 230,” said Jess Miers, legal advocacy counsel for Chamber of Progress, a center-left industry group that counts Google among its backers. Miers said this is because Section 230’s primary advantage is to help quickly dismiss cases against platforms that center on user posts.
“It’s a really dangerous test because, again, it encourages plaintiffs to then just plead their claims in ways that say, well, we’re not talking about how improper the content is at issue,” Miers said. “We’re talking about the way in which the service put that content together or compiled that content.”
Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, wrote on his blog that Henderson would be a “disastrous ruling if adopted by SCOTUS.”
“It was shocking to me to see Google endorse a Henderson opinion, because it’s a dramatic narrowing of Section 230,” Goldman said at a virtual press conference hosted by Chamber of Progress after the arguments. “And to the extent that the Supreme Court takes that bait and says, ‘Henderson’s good to Google, it’s good to us,’ we will actually see a dramatic narrowing of Section 230 where plaintiffs will find lots of other opportunities to to bring cases that are based on third-party content. They’ll just say that they’re based on something other than the harm that was in the third party content itself.”
Google pointed to the parts of its brief in the Gonzalez case that discuss the Henderson test. In the brief, Google attempts to distinguish the actions of a search engine, social media site, or chat room that displays snippets of third-party information from those of a credit-reporting website, like those at issue in Henderson.
In the case of a chatroom, Google says, although the “operator supplies the organization and layout, the underlying posts are still third-party content,” meaning it would be covered by Section 230.
“By contrast, where a credit-reporting website fails to provide users with its own required statement of consumer rights, Section 230(c)(1) does not bar liability,” Google wrote. “Even if the website also publishes third-party content, the failure to summarize consumer rights and provide that information to customers is the website’s act alone.”
Google also said 230 would not apply to a website that “requires users to convey allegedly illegal preferences,” like those that would violate housing law. That’s because by “‘materially contributing to [the content’s] unlawfulness,’ the website makes that content its own and bears responsibility for it,” Google said, citing the 2008 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com case.
Concerns over Google’s concession
Section 230 experts digesting the Supreme Court arguments were perplexed by Google’s lawyer’s decision to give such a full-throated endorsement of Henderson. In trying to make sense of it, several suggested it might have been a strategic decision to try to show the justices that Section 230 is not a boundless free pass for tech platforms.
But in doing so, many also felt Google went too far.
Cathy Gellis, who represented amici in a brief submitted in the case, said at the Chamber of Progress briefing that Google’s lawyer was likely looking to illustrate the line of where Section 230 does and does not apply, but “by endorsing it as broadly, it endorsed probably more than we bargained for, and certainly more than necessarily amici would have signed on for.”
Corbin Barthold, internet policy counsel at Google-backed TechFreedom, said in a separate press conference that the idea Google may have been trying to convey in supporting Henderson wasn’t necessarily bad on its own. He said they seemed to try to make the argument that even if you use a definition of publication like Henderson lays out, organizing information is inherent to what platforms do because “there’s no such thing as just like brute conveyance of information.”
But in making that argument, Barthold said, Google’s lawyer “kind of threw a hostage to fortune.”
“Because if the court then doesn’t buy the argument that Google made that there’s actually no distinction to be had here, it could go off in kind of a bad direction,” he added.
Miers speculated that Google might have seen the Henderson case as a relatively safe one to cite, given than it involves an alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, rather than a question of a user’s social media post.
“Perhaps Google’s lawyers were looking for a way to show the court that there are limits to Section 230 immunity,” Miers said. “But I think in in doing so, that invites some pretty problematic reading readings into the Section 230 immunity test, which can have pretty irreparable results for future internet law litigation.”
WATCH: Why the Supreme Court’s Section 230 case could reshape the internet
Piotr Swat | Lightrocket | Getty Images
AppLovin CEO Adam Foroughi provided more clarity on the ad-tech company’s late-stage effort to acquire TikTok, calling his offer a “much stronger bid than others” on CNBC’s The Exchange Friday afternoon.
Foroughi said the company is proposing a merger between AppLovin and the entire global business of TikTok, characterizing the deal as a “partnership” where the Chinese could participate in the upside while AppLovin would run the app.
“If you pair our algorithm with the TikTok audience, the expansion on that platform for dollars spent will be through the roof,” Foroughi said.
The news comes as President Trump announced he would extend the deadline a second time for TikTok’s Chinese-owned parent company ByteDance to sell the U.S. subsidiary of TikTok to an American buyer or face an effective ban on U.S. app stores. The new deadline is now in June, which, as Foroughi described, “buys more time to put the pieces together” on AppLovin’s bid.
“The president’s a great dealmaker — we’re proposing, essentially an enhancement to the deal that they’ve been working on, but a bigger version of all the deals contemplated,” he added.
AppLovin faces a crowded field of other interested U.S. backers, including Amazon, Oracle, billionaire Frank McCourt and his Project Liberty consortium, and numerous private equity firms. Some proposals reportedly structure the deal to give a U.S. buyer 50% ownership of the company, rather than a complete acquisition. The Chinese government will still need to approve the deal, and AppLovin’s interest in purchasing TikTok in “all markets outside of China” is “preliminary,” according to an April 3 SEC filing.
Correction: A prior version of this story incorrectly characterized China’s ongoing role in TikTok should AppLovin acquire the app.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event announcing new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, April 2, 2025.
Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images
President Donald Trump announced an aggressive, far-reaching “reciprocal tariff” policy this week, leaving many economists and U.S. trade partners to question how the White House calculated its rates.
Trump’s plan established a 10% baseline tariff on almost every country, though many nations such as China, Vietnam and Taiwan are subject to much steeper rates. At a ceremony in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, Trump held up a poster board that outlined the tariffs that it claims are “charged” to the U.S., as well as the “discounted” reciprocal tariffs that America would implement in response.
Those reciprocal tariffs are mostly about half of what the Trump administration said each country has charged the U.S. The poster suggests China charges a tariff of 67%, for instance, and that the U.S. will implement a 34% reciprocal tariff in response.
However, a report from the Cato Institute suggests the trade-weighted average tariff rates in most countries are much different than the figures touted by the Trump administration. The report is based on trade-weighted average duty rates from the World Trade Organization in 2023, the most recent year available.
The Cato Institute says the 2023 trade-weighted average tariff rate from China was 3%. Similarly, the administration says the EU charges the U.S. a tariff of 39%, while the 2023 trade-weighted average tariff rate was 2.7%, according to the report.
In India, the Trump administration claims that a 52% tariff is charged against the U.S., but Cato found that the 2023 trade-weighted average tariff rate was 12%.
Many users on social media this week were quick to notice that the U.S. appeared to have divided the trade deficit by imports from a given country to arrive at tariff rates for individual countries. It’s an unusual approach, as it suggests that the U.S. factored in the trade deficit in goods but ignored trade in services.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative briefly explained its approach in a release, and stated that computing the combined effects of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in various countries “can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero.”
“If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair,” the USTR said in the release.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella speaks during the Microsoft Build conference at Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Washington, on May 21, 2024.
Jason Redmond | AFP | Getty Images
A half-century ago, childhood friends Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft from a strip mall in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Five decades and almost $3 trillion later, the company celebrates its 50th birthday on Friday from its sprawling campus in Redmond, Washington.
Now the second most valuable publicly traded company in the world, Microsoft has only had three CEOs in its history, and all of them are in attendance for the monumental event. One is current CEO Satya Nadella. The other two are Gates and Steve Ballmer, both among the 11 richest people in the world due to their Microsoft fortunes.
While Microsoft has mostly been on the ascent of late, with Nadella turning the company into a major power player in cloud computing and artificial intelligence, the birthday party lands at an awkward moment.
The company’s stock price has dropped for four consecutive months for the first time since 2009 and just suffered its steepest quarterly drop in three years. That was all before President Donald Trump’s announcement this week of sweeping tariffs, which sent the Nasdaq tumbling on Thursday and Microsoft down another 2.4%.
Cloud computing has been Microsoft’s main source of new revenue since Nadella took over from Ballmer as CEO in 2014. But the Azure cloud reported disappointing revenue in the latest quarter, a miss that finance chief Amy Hood attributed in January to power and space shortages and a sales posture that focused too much on AI. Hood said revenue growth in the current quarter will fall to 10% from 17% a year earlier
Nadella said management is refining sales incentives to maximize revenue from traditional workloads, while positioning the company to benefit from the ongoing AI boom.
“You would rather win the new than just protect the past,” Nadella told analysts on a conference call.
The past remains healthy. Microsoft still generates around one-fifth of its roughly $262 billion in annual revenue from productivity software, mostly from commercial clients. Windows makes up around 10% of sales.
Meanwhile, the company has used its massive cash pile to orchestrate its three largest acquisitions on record in a little over eight years, snapping up LinkedIn in late 2016, Nuance Communications in 2022 and Activision Blizzard in 2023, for a combined $121 billion.
“Microsoft has figured out how to stay ahead of the curve, and 50 years later, this is a company that can still be on the forefront of technology innovation,” said Soma Somasegar, a former Microsoft executive who now invests in startups at venture firm Madrona. “That’s a commendable place for the company to be in.”
When Somasegar gave up his corporate vice president position at Microsoft in 2015, the company was fresh off a $7.6 billion write-down from Ballmer’s ill-timed purchase of Nokia’s devices and services business.
Microsoft is now in a historic phase of investment. The company has built a $13.8 billion stake in OpenAI and last year spent almost $76 billion on capital expenditures and finance leases, up 83% from a year prior, partly to enable the use of AI models in the Azure cloud. In January, Nadella said Microsoft has $13 billion in annualized AI revenue, more even than OpenAI, which just closed a financing round valuing the company at $300 billion.
Microsoft’s spending spree has constrained free cash flow growth. Guggenheim analysts wrote in a note after the company’s earnings report in January, “You just have to believe in the future.”
Of the 35 Microsoft analysts tracked by FactSet, 32 recommend buying the stock, which has appreciated tenfold since Nadella became CEO. Azure has become a fearsome threat to Amazon Web Services, which pioneered the cloud market in the 2000s, and startups as well as enterprises are flocking to its cloud technology.
Winston Weinberg, CEO of legal AI startup Harvey, uses OpenAI models through Azure. Weinberg lauded Nadella’s focus on customers of all sizes.
“Satya has literally responded to emails within 15 minutes of us having a technical problem, and he’ll route it to the right person,” Weinberg said.
Still, technology is moving at an increasingly rapid pace and Microsoft’s ability to stay on top is far from guaranteed. Industry experts highlighted four key issues the company has to address as it pushes into its next half-century.
Microsoft didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Regulation
There’s some optimism that the Trump administration and a new head of the Federal Trade Commission will open up the door to the kinds of deal-making that proved very challenging during Joe Biden’s presidency, when Lina Khan headed the FTC.
But regulatory uncertainty remains.
It’s not a new risk for Microsoft. In 1995, the company paid a $46 million breakup fee to tax software maker Intuit after the Justice Department filed suit to block the proposed deal. Years later, the DOJ got Microsoft to revamp some of its practices after a landmark antitrust case.
Microsoft pushed through its largest acquisition ever, the $75 billion purchase of video game publisher Activision, during Biden’s term. But only after a protracted legal battle with the FTC.
At the very end of Biden’s time in office, the FTC opened an antitrust investigation on Microsoft. That probe is ongoing, Bloomberg reported in March.
Nadella has cultivated a relationship with Trump. In January, the two reportedly met for lunch at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, alongside Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
President Donald Trump shakes hands with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella during an American Technology Council roundtable at the White House in Washington on June 19, 2017.
Nicholas Kamm | AFP | Getty Images
The U.S. isn’t the only concern. The U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority said in January that an independent inquiry found that “Microsoft is using its strong position in software to make it harder for AWS and Google to compete effectively for cloud customers that wish to use Microsoft software on the cloud.”
Microsoft last year committed to unbundling Teams from Microsoft 365 productivity software subscriptions globally to address concerns from the European Union’s executive arm, the European Commission.
Noncore markets
Fairly early in Microsoft’s history the company became the world’s largest software maker. And in cloud, Microsoft is the biggest challenger to AWS. Most of the company’s revenue comes from corporations, schools and governments.
But Microsoft is in other markets where its position is weaker. Those include video games, laptops and search advertising.
Mary Jo Foley, editor in chief at advisory group Directions on Microsoft, said the company may be better off focusing on what it does best, rather than continuing to offer Xbox consoles and Surface tablets.
“Microsoft is not good at anything in the consumer space (with the possible exception of gaming),” wrote Foley, who has covered the company on and off since 1984. “You’re wasting time and money on trying to figure it out. Microsoft is an enterprise company — and that is more than OK.”
It’s unlikely Microsoft will back away from games, particularly after the Activision deal. Nearly $12 billion of Microsoft’s $69.6 billion in fourth-quarter revenue came from gaming, search and news advertising, and consumer subscriptions to the Microsoft 365 productivity bundle. That doesn’t include sales of devices, Windows licenses or advertising on LinkedIn.
“As a company, Microsoft’s all-in on gaming,” Nadella said in 2021 in an appearance alongside gaming unit head Phil Spencer. “We believe we can play a leading role in democratizing gaming and defining that future of interactive entertainment, quite frankly, at scale.”
AI pressure
Microsoft has an unquestionably strong position in AI today, thanks in no small part to its early alliance with OpenAI. Microsoft has added the startup’s AI models to Windows, Excel, Bing and other products.
The breakout has been GitHub Copilot, which generates source code and answers developers’ questions. GitHub reached $2 billion in annualized revenue last year, with Copilot accounting for more than 40% of sales growth for the business. Microsoft bought GitHub in 2018 for $7.5 billion.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, right, speaks as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman looks on during the OpenAI DevDay event in San Francisco on Nov. 6, 2023.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images
But speedy deployment in AI can be worrisome.
The company is “not providing the underpinnings needed to deploy AI properly, in terms of security and governance — all because they care more about being ‘first,'” Foley wrote. Microsoft also hasn’t been great at helping customers understand the return on investment, she wrote.
AI-ready Copilot+ PCs, which Microsoft introduced last year, aren’t gaining much traction. The company had to delay the release of the Recall search feature to prevent data breaches. And the Copilot assistant subscription, at $30 a month for customers of the Microsoft 365 productivity suite, hasn’t become pervasive in the business world.
“Copilot was really their chance to take the lead,” said Jason Wong, an analyst at technology industry researcher Gartner. “But increasingly, what it’s seeming like is Copilot is just an add-on and not like a net-new thing to drive AI.”
Innovation
At 50, the biggest question facing Microsoft is whether it can still build impressive technology on its own. Products like the Surface and HoloLens augmented reality headset generated buzz, but they hit the market years ago.
Teams was a novel addition to its software bundle, though the app’s success came during the Covid pandemic after the explosive growth in products like Zoom and Slack, which Salesforce acquired. And Microsoft is still researching quantum computing.
In AI, Microsoft’s best bet so far was its investment in OpenAI. Somasegar said Microsoft is in prime position to be a big player in the market.
“To me, it’s been 2½ years since ChatGPT showed up, and we are not even at the Uber and Airbnb moment,” Somasegar said. “There is a tremendous amount of value creation that needs to happen in AI. Microsoft as much as everybody else is thinking, ‘What does that mean? How do we get there?'”
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway