Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 27 2017, @07:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-need-a-Snapchat-filter-filter dept.

A judge in the U.S. state of Georgia has dismissed a lawsuit against Snapchat Inc. (also known as Snap, Inc.) regarding its eponymous photo and video sharing app. The plaintiffs, who were injured in a two-car crash, claimed that the driver of the other car, in the words of CBS News,

[...] was trying to reach 100 mph on a highway south of Atlanta when her car hit theirs [...]

[...] while [she was] using a Snapchat filter that puts the rate at which a vehicle is traveling over an image.

The judge cited (Wikipedia link added by submitter)

[...] the immunity clause of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

As reported by WGCL-TV, a CBS affiliate in Atlanta, a motion filed by the company (PDF) asserted that the driver whose car collided with the plaintiffs' car "was not using the Snapchat application at the time of the collision" (quoted from the court filing, with emphasis removed).

Additional coverage:

Related stories:
The Company Formerly Known as Snapchat may be Worth $25 Billion
Goodbye Snapchat, Hello Snap Inc


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:46PM (#459724)

    Not weighing in on the merits of the case, but the reasoning in the case is scary. The court punts on being able to regulate Snapchat, just because it declines to open a corporate office in Georgia. Which seems just strange, to say the least. I mean, they are clearly doing business in Georgia, in that they are selling a product to Georgians and collecting money from them.

    It eventually says that the CDA would have kept them from allowing the lawsuit to go forward at all, but the first reason is fucked up.