The ‘Henderson test’ could weaken Big Tech’s favorite law 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 algorithmically 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 it 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 the 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 the 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 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 that 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 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
Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning says censorship is still “a dominant threat,” advocating for a more decentralized internet to help better protect individuals online.
Her comments come amid ongoing tension linked to online safety rules, with some tech executives recently seeking to push back over content moderation concerns.
Speaking to CNBC’s Karen Tso at the Web Summit tech conference in Lisbon, Portugal, on Wednesday, Manning said that one way to ensure online privacy could be “decentralized identification,” which gives individuals the ability to control their own data.
“Censorship is a dominant threat. I think that it is a question of who’s doing the censoring, and what the purpose is — and also censorship in the 21st century is more about whether or not you’re boosted through like an algorithm, and how the fine-tuning of that seems to work,” Manning said.
“I think that social media and the monopolies of social media have sort of gotten us used to the fact that certain things that drive engagement will be attractive,” she added.
“One of the ways that we can sort of countervail that is to go back to the more decentralized and distribute the internet of the early ’90s, but make that available to more people.”
Nym Technologies Chief Security Officer Chelsea Manning at a press conference held with Nym Technologies CEO Harry Halpin in the Media Village to present NymVPN during the second day of Web Summit on November 13, 2024 in Lisbon, Portugal.
Horacio Villalobos | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Asked how tech companies could make money in such a scenario, Manning said there would have to be “a better social contract” put in place to determine how information is shared and accessed.
“One of the things about distributed or decentralized identification is that through encryption you’re able to sort of check the box yourself, instead of having to depend on the company to provide you with a check box or an accept here, you’re making that decision from a technical perspective,” Manning said.
‘No longer secrecy versus transparency’
Manning, who works as a security consultant at Nym Technologies, a company that specializes in online privacy and security, was convicted of espionage and other charges at a court-martial in 2013 for leaking a trove of secret military files to online media publisher WikiLeaks.
She was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but was later released in 2017, when former U.S. President Barack Obama commuted her sentence.
Asked to what extent the environment has changed for whistleblowers today, Manning said, “We’re at an interesting time because information is everywhere. We have more information than ever.”
She added, “Countries and governments no longer seem to invest the same amount of time and effort in hiding information and keeping secrets. What countries seem to be doing now is they seem to be spending more time and energy spreading misinformation and disinformation.”
Manning said the challenge for whistleblowers now is to sort through the information to understand what is verifiable and authentic.
“It’s no longer secrecy versus transparency,” she added.
Technology
SoftBank-backed fintech Zopa aims to double profit this year as it eyes 2025 current account launch
Jaidev Janardana, CEO of U.K. digital bank Zopa.
Zopa
LISBON, Portugal — British online lender Zopa is on track to double profits and increase annual revenue by more than a third this year amid bumper demand for its banking services, the company’s CEO told CNBC.
Zopa posted revenues of £222 million ($281.7 million) in 2023 and is expecting to cross the £300 million revenue milestone this year — that would mark a 35% annual jump.
The 2024 estimates are based on unaudited internal figures.
The firm also says it is on track to increase pre-tax profits twofold in 2024, after hitting £15.8 million last year.
Zopa, a regulated bank that is backed by Japanese giant SoftBank, has plans to venture into the world of current accounts next year as it looks to focus more on new products.
The company currently offers credit cards, personal loans and savings accounts that it offers through a mobile app — similar to other digital banks such as Monzo and Revolut which don’t operate physical branches.
“The business is doing really well. In 2024, we’ve hit or exceeded the plans across all metrics,” CEO Jaidev Janardana told CNBC in an interview Wednesday.
He said the strong performance is coming off the back of gradually improving sentiment in the U.K. economy, where Zopa operates exclusively.
Commenting on Britain’s macroeconomic conditions, Janardana said, “While it has been a rough few years, in terms of consumers, they have continued to feel the pain slightly less this year than last year.”
The market is “still tight,” he noted, adding that fintech offerings such as Zopa’s — which typically provide higher savings rates than high-street banks — become “more important” during such times.
“The proposition has become more relevant, and while it’s tight for customers, we have had to be much more constrained in terms of who we can lend to,” he said, adding that Zopa has still been able to grow despite that.
A big priority for the business going forward is product, Janardana said. The firm is developing a current account product which would allow users to spend and manage their money more easily, in a similar fashion to mainstream banking providers like HSBC and Barclays, as well as fintech upstarts such as Monzo.
“We believe that there is more that the consumer can have in the current account space,” Janardana said. “We expect that we will launch our current account with the general public sometime next year.”
Janardana said consumers can expect a “slick” experience from Zopa’s current account offering, including the ability to view and manage multiple account bank accounts from one interface and access to competitive savings rates.
IPO ‘not top of mind’
Zopa is one of many fintech companies that has been viewed as a potential IPO candidate. Around two years ago, the firm said that it was planning to go public, but later decided to put those plans on ice, as high interest rates battered technology stocks and the IPO market froze over in 2022.
Janardana said he doesn’t envision a public listing as an immediate priority, but noted he sees signs pointing toward a more favorable U.S. IPO market next year.
That should mean that Europe becomes more open to IPOs happening later in 2026, according to Janardana. He didn’t disclose where Zopa would end up going public.
“To be honest, it’s not the top of mind for me,” Janardana told CNBC. “I think we continue to be lucky to have supportive and long-term shareholders who support future growth as well.”
Last year, Zopa made two senior hires, appointing Peter Donlon, ex-chief technology officer at online card retailer Moonpig, as its own CTO. The firm also hired Kate Erb, a chartered accountant from KPMG, as its chief operating officer.
The company raised $300 million in a funding round led by Japanese tech investor SoftBank in 2021 and was last valued by investors at $1 billion.
Technology
It’s ‘liquidity, stupid’: VCs say tech investing is tough amid IPO lull and ‘nuts’ AI hype
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway