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
Technology
OpenAI dissolves team focused on long-term AI risks, less than one year after announcing it
Boaz Weinstein, founder and chief investment officer of Saba Capital Management, during the Bloomberg Invest event in New York, US, on Wednesday, June 7, 2023.
Jeenah Moon | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Boaz Weinstein, the hedge fund investor on the winning side of JPMorgan Chase’s $6.2 billion, “London Whale” trading loss in 2011, is now taking on index fund giant BlackRock.
On Friday, Weinstein‘s Saba Capital detailed in a presentation seen by CNBC its plans to push for change at 10 closed-end BlackRock funds that trade at a significant discount to the value of their underlying assets compared to their peers. Saba says the underperformance is a direct result of BlackRock’s management.
The hedge fund wants board control at three BlackRock funds and a minority slate at seven others. It also seeks to oust BlackRock as the manager of six of those ten funds.
“In the last three years, nine of the ten funds that we’re even talking about have lost money for investors,” Weinstein said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” earlier this week.
At the heart of Saba’s “Hey BlackRock” campaign is an argument around governance. Saba says in its presentation that BlackRock runs those closed-end funds the “exact opposite” way it expects companies to run themselves.
BlackRock “is talking out of both sides of its mouth” by doing this, Saba says. That’s cost retail investors $1.4 billion in discounts, by Saba’s math, on top of the management fees it charges.
BlackRock, Saba says in the deck, “considers itself a leader in governance, but is crushing shareholder rights.” At certain BlackRock funds, for example, if an investor doesn’t submit their vote in a shareholder meeting, their shares will automatically go to support BlackRock. Saba is suing to change that.
A BlackRock spokesperson called that assertion “very misleading” and said those funds “simply require that most shareholders vote affirmatively in favor.”
The index fund manager’s rebuttal, “Defend Your Fund,” describes Saba as an activist hedge fund seeking to “enrich itself.”
The problem and the solution
Closed-end funds have a finite number of shares. Investors who want to sell their positions have to find an interested buyer, which means they may not be able to sell at a price that reflects the value of a fund’s holdings.
In open-ended funds, by contrast, an investor can redeem its shares with the manager in exchange for cash. That’s how many index funds are structured, like those that track the S&P 500.
Saba says it has a solution. BlackRock should buy back shares from investors at the price they’re worth, not where they currently trade.
“Investors who want to come out come out, and those who want to stay will stay for a hundred years, if they want,” Weinstein told CNBC earlier this week.
Weinstein, who founded Saba in 2009, made a fortune two years later, when he noticed that a relatively obscure credit derivatives index was behaving abnormally. Saba began buying up the underlying derivatives that, unbeknownst to him, were being sold by JPMorgan’s Bruno Iksil. For a time, Saba took tremendous losses on the position, until Iksil’s bet turned sour on him, costing JPMorgan billions and netting Saba huge profits.
Saba said in its investor deck that the changes at BlackRock could take the form of a tender offer or a restructuring. The presentation noted that BlackRock previously cast its shares in support of a tender at another closed-end fund where an activist was pushing for similar change.
At the worst-performing funds relative to their peer group, Saba is seeking shareholder approval to fire the manager. In total, BlackRock wants new management at six funds, including the BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ), the BlackRock Innovation and Growth Term Trust (BIGZ) and the BlackRock Health Sciences Term Trust (BMEZ).
“BlackRock is failing as a manager by delivering subpar performance compared to relevant benchmarks and worst-in-class corporate governance,” the deck says.
If Saba were to win shareholder approval to fire BlackRock as manager at the six funds, the newly constituted boards would then run a review process over at least six months. Saba says that in addition to offering liquidity to investors, its board nominees would push for reduced fees and for other unspecified governance fixes.
A BlackRock spokesperson told CNBC that the firm has historically taken steps to improve returns at closed-end funds when necessary.
“BlackRock’s closed-end funds welcome constructive engagement with thoughtful shareholders who act in good faith with the shared goal of enhancing long-term value for all,” the spokesperson said.
Weinstein said Saba has run similar campaigns at roughly 60 closed-end funds in the past decade but has only taken over a fund’s management twice. The hedge fund sued BlackRock last year to remove that so-called “vote-stripping provision” at certain funds and filed another lawsuit earlier this year.
BlackRock has pitched shareholders via mailings and advertisements. “Your dependable, income-paying investment,” BlackRock has told investors, is under threat from Saba.
Saba plans to host a webinar for shareholders on Monday but says BlackRock has refused to provide the shareholder list for several of the funds. The BlackRock spokesperson said that it has “always acted in accordance with all applicable laws” when providing shareholder information, and that it “never blocked Saba’s access to shareholders.”
“What we want is for shareholders, which we are the largest of but not in any way the majority, to make that $1.4 billion, which can be done at the press of a button,” Weinstein told CNBC earlier this week.
WATCH: CNBC’s full interview with Saba Capital’s Boaz Weinstein
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Environment12 months agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports1 month agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports7 months agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment1 year agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Environment1 year agoTesla advances Powerwall pilot project with German electric company