UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE ESTATE OF CARSON BRIDE, No. 23-55134 by and through his appointed administrator KRISTIN BRIDE; A. D.C. No. K., by and through her legal guardian 2:21-cv-06680- Jane Doe 1; A. C., by and through her FWS-MRW legal guardian Jane Doe 2; A. O., by and through her legal guardian Jane Does 3; TYLER CLEMENTI OPINION FOUNDATION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YOLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fred W. Slaughter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed August 22, 2024 2 ESTATE OF BRIDE V. YOLO TECH., INC.

Before: Eugene E. Siler, * Carlos T. Bea, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Siler

SUMMARY **

Communications Decency Act

The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ products liability claims in their diversity class action alleging that YOLO Technologies violated multiple state tort and product liability laws by developing an anonymous messaging app which promised to unmask bullying and abusive users, but YOLO never actually did so. The district court held that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which protects apps and websites which receive content posted by third-party users from liability for any content posted on their services—immunized YOLO from liability on plaintiffs’ claims and dismissed the complaint. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims, the panel held that the claims

* The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ESTATE OF BRIDE V. YOLO TECH., INC. 3

survived because plaintiffs seek to hold YOLO accountable for its promise to unmask or ban users who violated the terms of service, and not for a failure to take certain moderation actions. Affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ products liability claims, the panel held that § 230 precludes liability because plaintiffs’ product liability theories attempt to hold YOLO liable as a publisher of third-party content.

COUNSEL Juyoun Han (argued), Eric M. Baum, Andrew Clark, and Jonathan Axel, Eisenberg & Baum LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Ramnik S. Pujji (argued), Carol Yur, and Emma Moralyan, Dentons US LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant- Appellee. Megan Iorio and Tom McBrien, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center and Fairplay.

OPINION SILER, Circuit Judge:

Appellee YOLO Technologies developed an extension for use on the Snapchat application (“app”) which allowed users to ask public questions and send and receive anonymous responses. YOLO informed all users that it would reveal the identities of, and ban, anyone who engaged 4 ESTATE OF BRIDE V. YOLO TECH., INC.

in bullying or harassing behavior. Appellants, three living minor children and the estate of a fourth, all suffered extreme harassment and bullying through YOLO resulting in acute emotional distress, and in the case of Carson Bride, death by suicide. They brought this diversity class action alleging that YOLO violated multiple state tort and product liability laws by developing an