Section 230 and Generative AI

Section 230(c)(1) generally bars treating an interactive computer service provider or user as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider. Courts have applied it in online-content cases, but it is not blanket immunity: the defendant and claim must meet statutory conditions and exceptions, and liability for the provider’s own conduct can raise separate issues. Generative AI complicates the distinction between third-party content and the service’s own content. A user may supply a prompt, while the model generates text or images based on training and inference. A provider may argue the output is information supplied by another party; a plaintiff may argue the provider materially contributed through model design, system instructions, retrieval, or generation. The result depends on the output, prompt, product features, claim, and jurisdiction. CRS’s 2023 report described the question as unsettled. Since then, district courts have applied Section 230 to specific generative-AI advertising claims. In Bouck v. Meta, the court initially denied dismissal because plaintiffs alleged Meta’s AI tools generated scam-ad text and images, but later dismissed the case without prejudice under SLUSA; no final merits ruling resolved immunity. In Suddeth v. Meta, the court held Section 230 barred most claims premised on content-neutral tools that distributed ads created by scammers, while separate contract and quasi-contract claims remained. These fact-specific trial-court orders do not establish a nationwide rule. For product teams, analyze concrete claims rather than assume immunity or no immunity. Preserve prompts, system behavior, outputs, moderation decisions, and notices when investigating harm. Determine whether a claim concerns third-party material, the provider’s conduct, or another legal duty. Explain that outputs can be wrong and provide reporting and correction channels.