The US Supreme Court decided not to review a case involving a Texas teenager who sued Snapchat, alleging the platform did not adequately protect him from sexual abuse by a teacher. The minor, known as Doe, accused Snap Inc. of negligence for failing to safeguard young users from sexual predators, particularly a teacher who exploited him via the app. Bonnie Guess-Mazock, the teacher involved, was convicted of sexually assaulting the teenager.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields internet companies from liability for content posted by users. With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, Snapchat retains its protection under this law. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the broad immunity granted to social media platforms under Section 230.

Why does this matter?

The case has sparked wider debate about the responsibilities of tech companies in preventing such abuses and whether laws like Section 230 should be revised to hold them more accountable for content on their platforms. Both US political parties have called for reforms to ensure internet companies can be held liable when their platforms are used for harmful activities.