Product Liability

Are AI Overviews Creating New Risk of Libel for Search Engines?

October 7, 2024
Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Internet, Product Liability

Eleanor Nagel-Bennett, MJLST Staffer

47 USC § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) protects online service providers from civil liability for content published on their servers by third parties. Essentially, it clarifies that if a Google search for one’s name produced a link to a blog post containing false and libelous content about that person, the falsely accused searcher could pursue a claim of defamation against the publisher of the blog, but not against Google. Under § 230, Google is not considered the speaker or the publisher of the libelous statements on the blog, despite returning the libelous results on the search engine results page. Specifically, § 230 provides that “[n]o 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” for purposes of civil penalties.[i]

However, in May 2024 Google rolled out an “AI Overview” feature on their search engine. The AI Overview is powered by Gemini, Google’s generative artificial intelligence chatbot.[ii] Gemini generates a response to each google search by combining information from internet sources and writing a complete overview answer to the search query using “multi-step reasoning, planning and multimodality” functions.[iii] After submitting a query, the AI Overview is displayed at the top of the search results. In the first few weeks, Google’s AI Overview suffered from hallucinations producing “odd and erroneous” outputs.[iv] Some of the odd results were obviously false, such as suggesting a user try adhering cheese to their pizza with a glue stick.[v]

Besides going viral online, the silly results were largely inconsequential. However, there were also several more serious reports of Google’s AI Overview feature generating misinformation that presented responses more difficult to identify as false. One such result claimed that President Barack Obama was the first Muslim President, a popular but demonstrably false conspiracy theory that has circulated the internet for years, while another told users that certain poisonous mushrooms were safe for human consumption.[vi] Google has since changed the data pool used to produce AI Overviews, and now rarely produces blatantly false results — but is rarely enough when 8.5 billion searches are run per day on Google?[vii]

This raises the question: can search engines be held liable for libelous content published by their generative AI? A plaintiff will have to prove to the court that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not a statutory bar to claims against generative AI. A recent consensus of legal scholars anticipate courts will likely find that the CDA would not bar claims against a company producing libelous content through generative AI because content produced by generative AI is original work, “authored” by the AI itself.[viii]

For an illustrative comparison, consider how defamation claims against journalists work as compared to defamation claims against traditional search engine results. While a journalist may write stories based on interviews, research, and experience, the language she publishes are her own words, her own creation, and she can be held liable for them despite sourcing some pieces from other speakers. Traditional search engines on the other hand historically post the sourced material directly to the reader, so they are not the “speaker” and therefore are insulated from defamation claims.  Enter generative AI, the output of which is likely to be considered original work by courts, and that insulation may erode.[ix] Effectively, introducing an AI Overview feature waives the statutory bar to claims under § 230 of the CDA relied upon by search engines to avoid liability for defamation claims.

But even without an outright statutory bar to defamation claims against a search engine’s libelous AI output, there is disagreement over whether generative AI output in general is relied upon seriously enough by humans to give rise to a defamation claim. Some believe that AI generated text should not be interpreted as a reasonably perceived factual claim, and therefore argue that AI generated content cannot give rise to a claim for defamation.[x] This is where the legitimacy of a result displayed on a popular search engine comes into play. Even if AI generated text is not ordinarily reasonably perceived as a factual claim, when displayed at the top of a search engine’s results page, more weight and authority is given to the result, though users might otherwise be wary of AI outputs.[xi]

While no landmark case law on the liability of an AI machine for libelous output has been developed to date, several lawsuits have already been filed on the question of liability assignment for libelous content produced by generative AI, including at least one case against a search engine for AI generated output displayed on a search engine results page.[xii]

Despite the looming potential for consequences, most AI companies have neglected to give attention to the risk of libel created by the operation of generative AI.[xiii] While all AI companies should pay attention to the risks, search engines previously insulated from civil liability by § 230 of the CDA should be especially wary of just how much liability they may be opening themselves up to by including an AI Overview on their results pages.

 

Notes

[i] 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1).

[ii] Reid, Liz, Generative AI in Search: Let Google do the searching for you, Google (May 14, 2024) https://blog.google/products/search/generative-ai-google-search-may-2024/.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Reid, Liz, AI Overviews: About last week, Google (May 30, 2024) https://blog.google/products/search/ai-overviews-update-may-2024/.

[v] O’Brien, Matt, Google makes fixes to AI-generated search summaries after outlandish answers went viral, The Associated Press (May 30, 2024) https://apnews.com/article/google-ai-overviews-hallucination-33060569d6cc01abe6c63d21665330d8.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Brannon, Jordan, Game-Changing Google Search Statistics for 2024, Coalition, (Apr. 5, 2024) https://coalitiontechnologies.com/blog/game-changing-google-search-statistics-for-2024.

[viii] Joel Simon, Can AI be sued for defamation?, Col. Journalism Rev. (March 18, 2024).

[ix] Id.

[x]  See Eugene Volokh, Large Libel Models? Liability For AI Output, 3 J. Free Speech L. 489, 498 (2023).

[xi] Id.

[xii] In July of 2023, Jeffery Battle of Maryland filed suit against Microsoft for an AI generated search result on BING accusing him of crimes he did not commit. The Plaintiff Jeffery Battle is a veteran, business owner, and aerospace professor. When his name is searched online, however, Bing’s AI overview accuses Battle of crimes committed by a different Jeffrey Battle, Jeffery Leon Battle. The other Jeffery Battle pled guilty to seditious conspiracy and levying war against the United States after he tried to join the Taliban in the wake of 9/11. Bing’s search engine results page overview powered by Chat GPT combines information about the two Jeffery’s into one. See Id. at 492.

[xiii] Id. at 493.

Social Media Platforms Won’t “Like” This: How Aggrieved Users Are Circumventing the Section 230 Shield

October 4, 2024
Litigation, Product Liability, Public Safety, Social Media, Torts Law

Claire Carlson, MJLST Staffer

 

Today, almost thirty years after modern social media platforms were introduced, 93% of teens use social media on a daily basis.[1] On average, teens spend nearly five hours a day on social media platforms, with a third reporting that they are “almost constantly” active on one of the top five leading platforms.[2] As social media usage has surged, concerns have grown among users, parents, and lawmakers about its impacts on teens, with primary concerns including cyberbullying, extremism, eating disorders, mental health problems, and sex trafficking.[3] In response, parents have brought a number of lawsuits against social media companies alleging the platforms market to children, connect children with harmful content and individuals, and fail to take the steps necessary to keep children safe.[4]

 

When facing litigation, social media companies often invoke the immunity granted to them under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.[5] 47 U.S.C § 230 states, in relevant part, “[n]o 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.”[6] Federal courts are generally in consensus and interpret the statutory language as providing broad immunity for social media providers.[7] Application of this interpretive framework establishes that social media companies can only be held liable for content they author, whereas Section 230 shields them from liability for harm arising from information or content posted by third-party users of their platforms.[8]

 

In V.V. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that popular social media platform Snapchat intentionally encourages use by minors and consequently facilitated connections between their twelve-year-old daughter and sex offenders, leading to her assault.[9] The court held that the facts of this case fell squarely within the intended scope of Section 230, as the harm alleged was the result of the content and conduct of third-party platform users, not Snapchat.[10] The court expressed that Section 230 precedent required it to deny relief to the plaintiffs, whose specific circumstances evoked outrage, asserting it lacked judicial authority to do otherwise without legislative action.[11] Consequently, the court held that Section 230 shielded Snapchat from liability for the harm caused by the third-party platform users and that plaintiffs’ only option for redress was to bring suit against the third-party users directly.[12]

 

After decades of cases like V.V., where Section 230 has shielded social media companies from liability, plaintiffs are taking a new approach rooted in tort law. While Section 230 provides social media companies immunity from harm caused by their users, it does not shield them from liability for harm caused by their own platforms and algorithms.[13] Accordingly, plaintiffs are trying to bypass the Section 230 shield with product liability claims alleging that social media companies knowingly, and often intentionally, design defective products aimed at fostering teen addiction.[14] Many of these cases analogize social media companies to tobacco companies – maintaining that they are aware of the risks associated with their products and deliberately conceal them.[15] These claims coincide with the U.S. Surgeon General and 40+ attorney generals imploring Congress to pass legislation mandating warning labels on social media platforms emphasizing the risk of teen addiction and other negative health impacts.[16]

Courts stayed tort addiction cases and postponed rulings last year in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on the first Section 230 immunity cases to come before it.[17] In companion cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the Supreme Court was expected to shed light on the scope of Section 230 immunity by deciding whether social media companies are immune from liability when the platform’s algorithm recommends content that causes harm.[18] In both, the court declined to answer the Section 230 question and decided the cases on other grounds.[19]

 

Since then, while claims arising from third-party content are continuously dismissed, social media addiction cases have received positive treatment in both state and federal courts.[20] In a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding, the presiding judge permitted hundreds of addiction cases alleging defective product (platform and algorithm) design to move forward. In September, the MDL judge issued a case management order, which suggests an early 2026 trial date.[21] Similarly, a California state judge found that Section 230 does not shield social media companies from liability in hundreds of addiction cases, as the alleged harms are based on the company’s design and operation of their platforms, not the content on them.[22] Thus, social media addiction cases are successfully using tort law to bypass Section 230 where their predecessor cases failed.

 

With hundreds of pending social media cases and the Supreme Court’s silence on the scope of Section 230 immunity, the future of litigating and understanding social media platform liability is uncertain.[23] However, the preliminary results seen in state and federal courts evinces that Section 230 is not the infallible immunity shield that social media companies have grown to rely on.

 

Notes

 

[1] Leon Chaddock, What Percentage of Teens Use Social Media? (2024), Sentiment (Jan. 11, 2024), https://www.sentiment.io/how-many-teens-use-social-media/#:~:text=Surveys%20suggest%20that%20over%2093,widely%20used%20in%20our%20survey. In the context of this work, the term “teens” refers to people aged 13-17.

[2] Jonathan Rothwell, Teens Spend Average of 4.8 Hours on Social Media Per Day, Gallup (Oct. 13, 2023), https://news.gallup.com/poll/512576/teens-spend-average-hours-social-media-per-day.aspx; Monica Anderson, Michelle Faverio & Jeffrey Gottfried, Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023, Pew Rsch. Ctr. (Dec. 11, 2023), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social-media-and-technology-2023/.

[3] Chaddock, supra note 1; Ronald V. Miller, Social Media Addiction Lawsuit, Lawsuit Info. Ctr. (Sept. 20, 2024), https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/social-media-addiction-lawsuits.html#:~:text=Social%20Media%20Companies%20May%20Claim,alleged%20in%20the%20addiction%20lawsuits.

[4] Miller, supra note 3.

[5] Tyler Wampler, Social Media on Trial: How the Supreme Court Could Permanently Alter the Future of the Internet by Limiting Section 230’s Broad Immunity Shield, 90 Tenn. L. Rev. 299, 311–13 (2023).

[6] 47 U.S.C. § 230 (2018).

[7] V.V. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. X06UWYCV235032685S, 2024 WL 678248, at *8 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 16, 2024) (citing Brodie v. Green Spot Foods, LLC, 503 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)).

[8] V.V., 2024 WL 678248, at *8; Poole v. Tumblr, Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d 637, 641 (D. Conn. 2019).

[9] V.V., 2024 WL 678248, at *2.

[10] V.V., 2024 WL 678248, at *11.

[11] V.V., 2024 WL 678248, at *11.

[12] V.V., 2024 WL 678248, at *7, 11.

[13] Miller, supra note 3.

[14] Miller, supra note 3; Isaiah Poritz, Social Media Addiction Suits Take Aim at Big Tech’s Legal Shield, BL (Oct. 25, 2023), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/tech-and-telecom-law/X2KNICTG000000?bna_news_filter=tech-and-telecom-law#jcite.

[15] Kirby Ferguson, Is Social Media Big Tobacco 2.0? Suits Over the Impact on Teens, Bloomberg (May 14, 2024), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-05-14/is-social-media-big-tobacco-2-0-video.

[16] Miller, supra note 3.

[17] Miller, supra note 3; Wampler, supra note 5, at 300, 321; In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. Prod. Liab. Litig., 702 F. Supp. 3d 809, 818 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“[T]he Court was awaiting the possible impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google. Though that case raised questions regarding the scope of Section 230, the Supreme Court ultimately did not reach them.”).

[18] Wampler, supra note 5, at 300, 339-46; Leading Case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 137 Harv. L. Rev. 400, 409 (2023).

[19] Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 505 (2023) (holding that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that defendants aided and abetted terrorists); Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617, 622 (2023) (declining to address Section 230 because the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief).

[20] Miller, supra note 3.

[21] Miller, supra note 3; 702 F. Supp. at 809, 862.

[22] Miller, supra note 3; Poritz supra note 14.

[23] Leading Case, supra note 18, at 400, 409.

Foodborne Illness Law: E. Coli, Salmonella, and More

February 3, 2020
Food and Drug Law, Product Liability, Public Health, Torts Law

Katherine Nixon, MJLST Staffer

Sometime in the fall of 2018, I walked into Chipotle hoping for a nice savory burrito bowl. The best burrito bowl—at least in my opinion—is made up of the following: brown rice, chicken, cheese, lettuce, hot salsa, sour cream, and guacamole. One ingredient missing can throw off the whole experience. Well, I walked into Chipotle only to find a printed sign on the glass in front of the various ingredients. Let’s be honest, that never means anything good. The sign notified customers that Chipotle would not currently be offering romaine lettuce due to an E. coli outbreak. At first, all I could think was “Noooo, not my beloved burrito bowl. What will it be like without the crunchy lettuce?”

In looking past my immediate concern over the negative effect that a lettuceless burrito bowl would have on my taste buds, I was ultimately thankful I had not eaten the romaine lettuce. Big picture things. It was discovered that the romaine lettuce came from a farm in Santa Barbara County, California. It was distributed through many avenues and not just to food establishments like Chipotle. Unfortunately, people became very sick. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 62 people were infected from 16 states and the District of Columbia. Further, 25 people were hospitalized and 2 people developed a form of kidney failure. This ended up being a big deal. That particular outbreak began in October 2018 and wasn’t declared over until January 9, 2019.

Believe it or not, E. coli outbreaks occur with some frequency. A massive outbreak that began in September 2019 was just declared over by the CDC on January 15, 2020. Again, the source of that outbreak was romaine lettuce. Other outbreaks in 2019 came from ground bison, flour, and ground beef. Aside from E. coli, there are other types of outbreaks as well. For instance, in 2019, there were several Salmonella outbreaks related to food items such as papayas and frozen raw tuna. Many people fell sick.

At this point, you might be wondering—what does this all have to do with law? It turns out there is a whole body of law generally referred to as “foodborne illness law.” I know—you definitely don’t learn about that in your normal law school curriculum. Yet, the name is somewhat self-explanatory. As succinctly put by the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, “[A] person who is injured as a result of a foodborne illness may bring a civil cause of action against another by claiming that the other individual is legally liable for the harm caused by the foodborne illness.” Sometimes, there is even strict liability.

Overall, this type of law can be highly technical and usually involves the help of experts. It also can be quite difficult. Including the difficulty that often comes in discovering the source of a certain outbreak as well as the manufacturer of that source. It can be like piecing a giant puzzle together. However, once the pieces start to fit together, it all begins to make sense. If you have a science background, especially biology, this may be an area of law for you to consider. Next time you are at a family gathering and Uncle Eddy asks what you want to do, tell him you want to specialize in foodborne illness law. That will surely grab his attention.

 

 

“Juuling”: Gen Z’s Alleged Addiction May Mean Major Legal Problems for E-Cigarette Companies

October 6, 2018
Corporate Ethics, Ethics, Food and Agriculture, Health, Product Liability, Public Health

By: Jack Kall, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Vol. 20 Staffer

With every new week comes new headlines regarding Gen Z and their latest craze. After years of Millennials being cast as the generation responsible for everything wrong in the world, (Business Insider’s list of 19 things Millennials are killing, including everything from homeownership, banks, football, and oil to beer, napkins, cereal, and bars of soap; NPR describing how Millennials are killing Applebee’s; Forbes claiming Millennials might kill home-cooked meals and kitchens) it seems the media has found a new culprit, Gen Z! Gen Z’s supposed addiction to e-cigarettes, specifically to the JUUL brand, is common among the headlines.

Depending on how you define the generation, Gen Z includes anyone born in the years starting with 1995–2000 and ending between 2014–25. Pew Research has yet to name or define the end date of Gen Z, but it defines the “Post-Millennial generation” as those born 1997 and later.

No matter how you define Gen Z, it includes high school students, many of whom are under the legal tobacco consumption age of 18. High schoolers have been a major reason for both the rise of e-cig popularity and for giving JUUL Labs major market share in the e-cig industry. Browse through social media pages popular within the Gen Z community and you’ll inevitably see numerous posts about “Juuling.” However, Gen Z isn’t alone in its supposed obsession with e-cigs, as Leonardo DiCaprio (a member of Gen X) has long been known to appreciate vaping (e.g., 1, 2, 3).

JUUL Labs, which launched in 2015, has been repeatedly investigated for targeting minors through its advertising and sued for targeting teens with false claims of product safety. In 2017, Consumer Reports found that teens who vape are seven times more likely to turn to regular cigarettes. Additionally, the CDC has declared e-cig use among young people a public health concern.

As further research is published, JUUL should expect be the main target of continued legal action. One current case, a nationwide class action with ten named plaintiffs aged above 13, alleges in part that JUUL’s decision to market through social media was aimed at soliciting those under the legal smoking age. Another case, filed on behalf of a high school sophomore, alleges that JUUL is commonplace among his school, including use “on the school bus, in the bathrooms, outside of school and even in class.”

JUUL Labs will hope to continue to have success while under major legal scrutiny for its marketing practices. JUUL, importantly, hopes it can continue to show growth following its impressive financial valuation (most recently raising $1.2 billion in a financing round that valued the company at over $15 billion).

3D Printing: What Could Happen to Products Liability When Users (And Everyone Else in Between) Become Manufacturers?

February 12, 2017
3-D Printing, FDA, Product Liability

[Editor’s Note: Invited Bloggers James Beck & Matthew Jacobson co-authored the article on 3D printing in MJLST’s recent issue. This post summarizes the main arguments of their analysis.]

3D printing has the potential to disrupt and transform not only how and where objects are made, but all aspects of the law, including products liability.  In their recent article, 3D Printing: What Could Happen to Products Liability When Users (And Everyone Else in Between) Become Manufacturers (18 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 145), James Beck and Matthew Jacobson explore the legal implications 3D printing may have on product liability common-law and how courts, legislatures, and regulatory agencies may act in the wake of this novel technology.  The first part of this comprehensive guide covers what is 3D printing and how this new technology works, an overview of traditional tort liability concepts, and the gray area that forms when the two meet.  The second part of the article focuses on 3D printing’s impact on medical devices and health care and the product liability considerations that are specific to these highly technical and potentially life-saving products.

Given that 3D printing appears to be the next greatest chapter in the industrial revolution, with the technology often moving more rapidly than the law, this article is significant in that it comprehensively analyzes the current state of products liability law and the legal issues affecting this body of law arising from the 3D printing of products.

As the article explains, 3D printing is already starting to revolutionize different industries, including automotive, aerospace, and healthcare.   Individuals can already “print” products from a store (online or brick-and mortar) and their own homes (assuming they have a 3D printer and the necessary software and supplies).  In the future, airplane parts may be able to be printed from airports, car parts at a mechanic’s shop, and medical devices at a hospital or doctor’s office.  As the technology develops, the question becomes will the law also develop, especially as people get injured by these 3D printed products and the processes in by which they are printed.

Products liability is a relatively new area of the common law—although not as new as 3D printing—beginning its development in the 1960s, when manufacturing transitioned from local artisans and workshops to assembly-line processes.  Now that 3D printing may once again change the traditional way in which we view manufacturing, the law may also have to change once again.  Because strict products liability focuses on where products are manufactured and who designs and manufacturers those products, it may not be suited to address how and where 3D printed products are made.  These issues include what is a “product,” who is a “manufacturer,” what is the “marketplace,” and who has a duty to warn.  Each of these questions raises numerous issues, which will need to be addressed as courts are faced with the potential inadequacies in the common-law.  3D printing manufacturing techniques may also increase the number of possible products and manufacturers (once those terms are defined), so there are more scenarios of who may be liable then with traditional manufacturing techniques, which will result in courts and juries being left to sort it all out.

Beck and Jacobson discuss these issues and the current state of the common-law in depth, which includes analysis of product liability court opinions with respect to 3D printing (so far minimal) and comparable (to the extent possible) products and technologies.  While it is still uncertain how products liability law will develop or change, what is certain is that the law will change, and the authors offer their take on the changes that may come.

The potential issues 3D printing may have on products liability law only becomes more multifaceted, as the 3D printed products become more complex and technical, such as medical devices and pharmaceutical drugs and production shifts from central facilities to hospitals/doctors’ offices.  As the article explains, 3D printing has perhaps the greatest potential to benefit human lives and health care, even if the exact nature of those developments are hard to predict.  But with that great potential comes legal uncertainty, especially since medical devices and drugs are regulated in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

One of the legal challenges explored in article is the FDA regulatory framework for 3D printed medical devices.  The FDA currently views 3D printing as another form of advanced manufacturing, and thereby fits this technology in its already existing framework.  The FDA has already cleared (through its “510(k)” process) approximately 85 medical devices and approved one drug manufactured through 3D printing technology.  However, manufacturing truly innovative medical devices—such as bio-printed devices, medical devices made using a patient’s own stem cells—through 3D printing will require more FDA guidance.  As the article discusses, 3D printing is on the FDA’s agenda and the agency is continuing to better understand this technology and its place in improving healthcare.

The article not only points out the unknown product liability issues that may result from 3D printing, but also offers strategic insights, which may be useful to mitigate risk or to develop the common-law.  The article is a necessary guide for anyone involved in the 3D printing process, including manufactures of 3D printed products, manufactures of the printers, the computer software designers, the manufactures of 3D printing scanners, sellers of 3D printed products (all possible product liability defendants in the future), and even consumers or users of these products.

While the article focuses primarily on tort liability, the authors and their colleagues have published two white papers on similar issues, as well as other key legal issues including intellectual property, constitutional law, commercial litigation, data privacy, environmental effects, health risks in the workplace, and insurance risks and recovery:  3D Printing of Medical Devices:  When a Novel Technology Meets Traditional Legal Principles and 3D Printing of Manufactured Goods: An Updated Analysis.  The article, along with the two white papers, provide a wide-ranging guide on the legal implications of this novel technology across different practice areas.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | My Account