Gonzalez v. Google LLC

335 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Federal & State Law Editorial TeamLast reviewed: July 2026

Opinion Summary

Dismissed claims against Google and YouTube arising from terrorist attacks in Paris, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized Google from liability for ISIS recruitment videos hosted on YouTube. The court also found that YouTube's recommendation algorithms fell within Section 230's protection.

About this case

Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District

Article
Talk

Look for Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District on one of Wikipedia's sister projects :

[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wiktionary:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (dictionary)

[Wikibooks](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikibooks:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (textbooks)

[Wikiquote](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikiquote:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (quotations)

[Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikisource:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (library)

[Wikiversity](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikiversity:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (learning resources)

[Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "commons:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (media)

[Wikivoyage](https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikivoyage:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (travel guide)

[Wikidata](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikidata:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (linked database)

[Wikispecies](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "wikispecies:Special:Search/Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District")
 (species directory)

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to create new articles. Alternatively, you can use the article wizard to submit a draft for review, or request a new article .
Search for "Gonzalez v. Google Section 230 District" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title .

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function .
Titles on Wikipedia are **case sensitive ** except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log , and see Why was the page I created deleted?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalez_v._Google_Section_230_District "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Related Cases

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

Upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States under the Necessary and Proper Clause and held that states cannot tax federal institutions. Chief Justice Marshall established a broad interpretation of congressional power, declaring that the federal government possesses implied powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.

Gibbons v. Ogden

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)

Held that the Commerce Clause grants Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce, including navigation. States cannot grant monopolies that interfere with congressionally authorized interstate trade. Established the foundation for federal regulatory power over economic activity crossing state lines.

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour work week, holding it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty of contract. Inaugurated the 'Lochner era' of aggressive judicial review of economic regulations, which lasted until the late 1930s. Now widely criticized as judicial overreach.

Schenck v. United States

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Upheld the Espionage Act conviction of a man distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I. Justice Holmes introduced the 'clear and present danger' test for limiting free speech, stating that 'the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre.' The clear and present danger test was later replaced by the Brandenburg incitement test.

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Unanimously held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. States must provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them. Clarence Earl Gideon, who had represented himself and lost, was acquitted at retrial with appointed counsel.

Case Information

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Court Level: U.S. District Court
Date Decided: Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Citation: 335 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
Jurisdiction: United States Federal

Legal Topics

businesscriminal

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.