Reuters reports that Apple has defeated a proposed class action lawsuit alleging failure to prevent child sexual abuse material from being stored and shared via iCloud. Here are the details.
Apple is protected by Section 230
US District Judge Noël Wise dismissed with prejudice a proposed class action filed in 2024, accusing Apple of “failing to stop the distribution of child sexual abuse material through the iCloud data storage platform,” Reuters reports.
US District Judge Noël Wise in San Jose, California, in a ruling late Monday, agreed with Apple’s argument that the company is immune from claims brought by plaintiffs who say Apple failed to act to prevent images of their sexual abuse as children from being shared and stored on iCloud.
In the complaint, two survivors identified as Amy and Jessica claim that images of their childhood abuse continued to circulate through iCloud, and that Apple has deliberately refused to use the tools available to detect and report known CSAM.
The case pointed directly to Apple’s decision to abandon NeuralHash, a program announced in 2021 that would match photos uploaded to iCloud against a database of previously identified intrusions.
Amy and Jessica want to bring the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of thousands of other survivors. A recent court filing estimated the proposed class included 2,680 people “and estimated compensatory damages totaling $32.8 billion,” it said. Reuters.
They argue that the proposed class members are affected by the same Apple policies and product decisions, and that handling their claims together will reduce the burden and trauma of separate lawsuits. From filling:
Class treatment will minimize the harm that Class members may experience as a result of litigating their individual claims, and will further the remedial purposes of the state laws where the claims are brought.
After the dismissal of the court, Reuters noted that Judge “Wise said the lawsuit seeks to hold Apple liable for failing to remove or block user-generated content, bringing claims under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law of 1996.”
In short, Section 230 generally protects online services from being held liable as publishers of content created by their users, and has been in the midst of years of debate about how much responsibility technology companies should bear for content shared through their platforms.
Reuters says that despite the case being dismissed with prejudice, meaning it will not be refiled, “James Marsh, the plaintiffs’ attorney, […] they said they are considering the complaint and checking whether other legal requests are possible.”
You will learn Reuters‘ full report, follow this link.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use auto affiliate links to earn income. More.