Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 617–622

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT May 18, 2023

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users 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. OCTOBER TERM, 2022 617

Syllabus

GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 21–1333. Argued February 21, 2023—Decided May 18, 2023 In 2015, Nohemi Gonzalez, a U. S. citizen, was killed in a set of coordinated terrorist attacks carried out across Paris, France, under the direction of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Gonzalez's parents and brothers 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. With regard to their secondary-liability claims under § 2333(d)(2), plaintiffs alleged that Google aided and abet- ted and conspired with ISIS through ISIS' use of YouTube, which Google owns and operates. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, though it offered plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs opted to appeal, and the Ninth Circuit affrmed in a consolidated opinion that the Court also addressed in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471. With regard to this case, Page Proof Pending Publication the Ninth Circuit held that most of plaintiffs' claims were barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The sole exceptions were claims based on allegations that YouTube maintained a revenue- sharing system through which Google approved ISIS videos and shared revenue with ISIS; however, the court held that those allegations failed to state a viable claim in any event. Plaintiffs sought review in this Court of the Ninth Circuit's application of § 230 but not of that court's holdings regarding the revenue-sharing claims. Held: The Court declines to address the application of § 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief. The secondary-liability claims here are materially identical to those in the Twitter plaintiffs' complaint, and thus it appears to follow from the hold- ing of that case that the complaint here fails to state a claim for aiding and abetting under § 2333(d)(2). The remainder of plaintiffs' claims here may be barred by the Ninth Circuit's unchallenged holdings below. Accordingly, the Court remands the case for the Ninth Circuit to con- sider plaintiffs' complaint in light of this Court's decision in Twitter. Pp. 619–622. 2 F. 4th 871, vacated and remanded.

Eric Schnapper argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Robert J. Tolchin and Keith L. Altman. 618 GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

Counsel

Deputy Solicitor General Stewart argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging vacatur. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Fletcher, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Granston, Caroline A. Flynn, and Daniel Tenny. Lisa S. Blatt argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Sarah M. Harris, Aaron Z. Roper, Michael W. McConnell, Steffen N. Johnson, Brian M. Willen, Lauren Gallo White, Cassandra Knight, and Nora Puckett.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the State of Ten- nessee et al. by Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney Gen