Gonzalez v. Google LLC

(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 21–1333
_________________
REYNALDO GONZALEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
GOOGLE LLC
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[May 18, 2023]
PER CURIAM.
In 2015, ISIS terrorists unleashed a set of coordinated at-
tacks across Paris, France, killing 130 victims, including
Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U. S. citizen.1 Gonzalez’s
parents and brothers then sued Google, LLC, under 18
U. S. C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2), alleging that Google was both
directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist attack that
killed Gonzalez.2 For their secondary-liability claims,
——————
1 “ISIS” is shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. In some
form or another, it has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization
since 2004; ISIS has also been known as the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant, al Qaeda in Iraq, and the al-Zarqawi Network.
2 Title 18 U. S. C. §2333(a) provides: “Any national of the United States
injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of
international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue
therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall
recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit,
including attorney’s fees.” Section 2333(d)(2) provides: “In an action un-
der subsection (a) for an injury arising from an act of international ter-
rorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had
been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. 1189), as of the date on
which such act of international terrorism was committed, planned, or
authorized, liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and
2 GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC
Per Curiam
plaintiffs alleged that Google aided and abetted and con-
spired with ISIS. All of their claims broadly center on the
use of YouTube, which Google owns and operates, by ISIS
and ISIS supporters.
The District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for fail-
ure to state a claim, though it offered plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint. Instead, plaintiffs stood on their
complaint and appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in
a consolidated opinion that also addressed Twitter, Inc. v.
Taamneh, ___ U. S. ___ (2023). 2 F. 4th 871 (2021). With
respect to this case, the Ninth Circuit held that most of the
plaintiffs’ claims were barred by §230 of the Communica-
tions Decency Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C.
§230(c)(1). The sole exceptions were plaintiffs’ direct-
and secondary-liability claims based on allegations that
Google approved ISIS videos for advertisements and then
shared proceeds with ISIS through YouTube’s revenue-
sharing system. The Ninth Circuit held that these poten-
tial claims were not barred by §230, but that plaintiffs’
allegations failed to state a viable claim in any event.
We granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s appli-
cation of §230. See 598 U. S. ___ (2022). Plaintiffs did not
seek review of the Ninth Circuit’s holdings regarding their
revenue-sharing claims. In light of those unchallenged
holdings and our disposition of Twitter, on which we also
granted certiorari and in which we today reverse the Ninth
Circuit’s judgment, it has become clear that plaintiffs’ com-
plaint—independent of §230—states little if any claim for
relief. As plaintiffs concede, the allegations underlying
their secondary-liability claims are materially identical to
those at issue in Twitter. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 58. Since we
hold that the complaint in that case fails to state a claim for
aiding and abetting under §2333(d)(2), it appears to follow
——————
abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires
with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”
Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023) 3
Per Curiam
that the complaint here likewise fails to state such a claim.
And, in discussing plaintiffs’ revenue-sharing claims, the
Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged neither
that “Google reached an agreement with ISIS,” as required
for conspiracy liability, nor that Google’s acts were “in-
tended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to
influence or affect a government,” as required for a direct-
liability claim under §2333(a). 2 F. 4th, at 901, 907. Per-
haps for that reason, at oral argument, plaintiffs only
suggested that they should receive leave to amend their
complaint if we were to reverse and remand in Twitter. Tr.
of Oral Arg. 58, 163.
We need not resolve either the viability of plaintiffs’
claims as a whole or whether plaintiffs should receive fur-
ther leave to amend. Rather, we think it sufficient to
acknowledge that much (if not all) of plaintiffs’ complaint
seems to fail under either our decision in Twitter or the
Ninth Circuit’s unchallenged holdings below. We therefore
decline to address the application of §230 to a complaint
that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.
Instead, we vacate the judgment below and remand the
case for the Ninth Circuit to consider plaintiffs’ complaint
in light of our decision in Twitter.
It is so ordered.