Meta, Google Escape Liability Claim for Buffalo Shooting (1)

New York appellate judges on Friday dismissed internet giants Meta, Google, and Reddit from a lawsuit claiming they’re liable for a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, NY, because of defective algorithms that push harmful content.

Federal law “affords immunity to the social media defendants from plaintiffs’ tort causes of action against them,” Associate Justice Stephen Lindley of the New York Supreme Court Fourth Appellate Department wrote for the 3-2 court.

A ruling to the contrary would be inconsistent with and “eviscerate the expressed purpose” of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, Lindley said. That law says no “interactive computer service” provider can be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by a third party.

Lindley said it’s undisputed that the social media companies qualify as providers of interactive computer services and are immune from being held liable for third-party content on their platforms. The sites’ algorithms that push content to users don’t deprive them of their status as publishers, he added.

First-Party Speech

Survivors and family members of the shooting victims in four consolidated cases argued the algorithms those sites use to deliver tailored content to users should be considered products under the state’s product liability law. They sought to hold the companies accountable for disseminating “extreme and harmful” content that radicalized then-18-year-old Payton Gendron and led him carry out the May 14, 2022, shooting at Tops Friendly Market.

The lower court in March 2024 said there are viable allegations from plaintiff and refused to dismiss the cases.

Even if the social media sites engaged were found to engage in first-party speech, they would still be protected under the First Amendment, the court concluded.

“Thus, the interplay between section 230 and the First Amendment gives rise to a ‘Heads I Win, Tails You Lose’ proposition in favor of the social media defendants,” Lindley said.

Associate Justices John Curran and Nancy Smith joined Lindley on the opinion.

Definition of ‘Product’

Associate Justices Tracey Bannister and Henry Nowak dissented, saying the plaintiffs’ claims don’t implicate Section 230 or the First Amendment. Plaintiffs don’t seek to hold the companies liable for third-party content; rather they argue the social media algorithms are defective and the companies failed to warn of the risk of addiction in young people, they wrote.

Social media platforms are products and subject to strict products liability in New York, the dissenting justices said, citing a 2019 New York Court of Appeals opinion in which the court said it’s up to the court to determine as a matter of law whether something is a product.

The state high court “has recognized that the analysis of whether something is a product is inextricably” linked with whether the manufacturer owes a duty to warn, Bannister and Nowak said.

John Elmore of Buffalo, who represented the plaintiffs, said his litigation team and clients are discussing the next steps. “There are two very strong dissenting opinions that are in complete agreement with the lower court decision and our legal arguments. This case raises urgent legal and moral questions about how technology companies operate, and how victims of algorithm-driving harm can access justice,” Elmore said.

Attorneys for the social media companies didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Everytown for Gun Safety, which represents some of the plaintiffs, is backed by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.

Morrison & Foerster LLP represents Discord Inc. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP represents Meta. Wilson Sonsini represents Alphabet. O’Melveny & Myers LLP represents Snap Inc. Perkins Coie represents Reddit. Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC represents 4Chan Community Support. Hueston Hennigan LLP represents Amazon and Twitch Interactive Inc. Tycko & Zavareei LLP represents Jones and Stanfield. John Elmore of Buffalo represents Patterson. Dicello Levitt LLP represents Salter.

The cases are Patterson v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. CA 24-00513, opinion 7/25/25, Salter v. Meta Platforms Inc., N.Y. App. Div., 4th Dep’t, No. CA 24-00524, 7/25/25, Jones v. MEAN LLC, N.Y. App. Div., 4th Dep’t, No. CA 24-00515, 7/25/25, and Stanfield v. MEAN LLC, N.Y. App. Div., 4th Dep’t, No. CA 24-00527, 7/25/25.