UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNALDO GONZALEZ; THE No. 18-16700 ESTATE OF NOHEMI GONZALEZ; BEATRIZ GONZALEZ, Individually D.C. No. and as Administrator of the Estate 4:16-cv-03282- of Nohemi Gonzalez; JOSE DMR HERNANDEZ; REY GONZALEZ; PAUL GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding 2 GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE MEHIER TAAMNEH; LAWRENCE No. 18-17192 TAAMNEH; SARA TAAMNEH; DIMANA TAAMNEH, D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 3:17-cv-04107- EMC v. TWITTER, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE 3 GREGORY CLAYBORN, Individually No. 19-15043 and as Successor-In-Interest of the Estate of SIERRA CLAYBORN; KIM D.C. Nos. CLAYBORN; TAMISHIA CLAYBORN; 3:17-cv-06894-LB VANESSA NGUYEN, Individually 3:18-cv-00543-LB and as Successor-In-Interest of the Estate of TIN NGUYEN; TRUNG DO; JACOB THALASINOS; JAMES OPINION THALASINOS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. TWITTER, INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 26, 2020 San Francisco, California

Filed June 22, 2021

Before: Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Christen; Concurrence by Judge Berzon; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Gould 4 GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE

SUMMARY*

Anti-Terrorism Act

The panel addressed appeals from the district court’s dismissal of three actions seeking damages under the Anti- Terrorism Act against Google, Twitter, and Facebook on the basis that defendants’ social media platforms allowed ISIS to post videos and other content to communicate the terrorist group’s message, to radicalize new recruits, and to generally further its mission. The panel affirmed the judgments in the Gonzalez and Clayborn appeals and reversed and remanded in Taamneh.

Members of the families of victims of terrorism in Paris, Istanbul, and San Bernardino alleged that Google, Twitter, and Facebook were directly and secondarily liable for ISIS’s acts of international terrorism. The Gonzalez plaintiffs brought claims for both direct and secondary liability against Google. The district court concluded that most of plaintiffs’ claims were barred pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the direct liability claims failed to adequately allege proximate cause. In the Taamneh and Clayborn cases, the district court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a secondary liability claim against Google, Twitter, and Facebook.

The panel held that the district court in Gonzalez properly ruled that § 230 barred most of plaintiffs’ claims. The panel further held that the Gonzalez plaintiffs failed to state an

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE 5 actionable claim as to their remaining theories of liability. In Taamneh, the panel held