The YOLO Remand Shows Why the 9th Circuit Should Stop Carving Up Section 230
The Ninth Circuit's remand of the YOLO case raises concerns about the application of Section 230. Plaintiffs claim that YOLO's statements about content moderation were misleading, yet the court questions the validity of these claims. The case highlights ongoing issues with promise-based claims and the implications for First Amendment protections in content moderation.
- ▪The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that Section 230 does not apply to promise-based claims, allowing plaintiffs to proceed against YOLO.
- ▪The district court has rejected a default judgment in the case, citing numerous problems with class formation and the merits of the claims.
- ▪The court expressed skepticism about whether YOLO's statements constituted enforceable promises or mere puffery.
Hacker News (Newest) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 5,306 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Technology & Marketing Law Blog |
| Canonical URL | https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/05/the-yolo-remand-shows-why-the-9th-circuit-should-stop-carving-up-section-230-bride-v-snap.htm |
| Publication time | Thu, 21 May 2026 18:24:15 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-21T18:31:35.691Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-21T18:31:35.691Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | Jc1ceepPQCoy |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
This is the remand of the troubling Ninth Circuit Section 230 decision in Bride v. YOLO. As you may recall, the plaintiffs claims that YOLO made statements about its content moderation and the safety of its environment that the plaintiffs believe were not true; and based on that, YOLO should be liable for users’ physical and emotional harms. In its prior ruling, the Ninth Circuit said that Section 230 doesn’t apply to promise-based claims. That ruling allowed the plaintiffs to proceed against YOLO even though YOLO’s challenged statements clearly never made any enforceable promises. YOLO stopped paying its lawyers and stopped fighting in court, so it defaulted in the case.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Technology & Marketing Law Blog.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Technology & Marketing Law Blog
