Dick Durbin, senior member of the United States Senate Democratic Party, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, led by a bipartisan group of parliamentarians, have recently formally introduced the Sunset Section 230 Bill. The Act provides for the complete repeal of article 230 of the Communications Regulatory Code two years after its enactment, to enable victims of cyber-aggression to institute legal proceedings against scientific and technological companies and ultimately to hold them legally responsible for the damage to their platforms.
Article 230 was originally aimed at protecting the then-emerging web platform from prosecution for content published by users, thus contributing to the growth of the Internet industry. However, the drafters noted that the law had now become a shield for the hundreds of billion-dollar technology giants to evade responsibility. Senator Lindsey Graham put it bluntly: “The social media giant, which is neither regulated nor immune from litigation, earns billions of dollars in advertising through unimaginably undesirable content and criminal activity. “The proposal statement bitterly addresses the harm done to children by web platforms. Dick Durbin stressed: “Children are being exploited and abused because large technology companies continue to put profits above human security. This has to stop. Making article 230 ineffective would force the technology giant to face up to the harm it caused and to assume responsibility. If it does not act, the bill will open the door to litigation for Platform victims.” The bill is also supported by more than 20 advocacy organizations, including the National Centre for Sexual Exploitation, Rights4Girls, Fairplay for Kids and the Digital Childhood Alliance, which create a rare social consensus. Senator Blumenthal tactfully stated: “It has been 10 years since Zuckerberg and others publicly claimed to support reform, and its lobbyists and lawyers have tried to block it behind the scenes”. By setting a two-year limit, the bill aims to force technology companies to reach the negotiating table, “either negotiate a reasonable reform or permanently lose absolute immunity”. Although lawmakers focus mainly on traditional social media, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter/X, the protection of article 230 effectively covers a variety of websites and online content, including news websites, blogs and popular online markets such as Amazon, eBay, and Etsy. These platforms have long relied on “only a place to trade” to evade responsibility, but the reality is becoming increasingly complex.
In 2023, the United States Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, sued the sale of illegal chemicals, pesticides and release control equipment on the eBay platform, but Judge Orelia Merchant dismissed the case on the basis of section 230, finding that eBay was not liable for the goods sold on the platform by a third-party seller. The Ministry of Justice abandoned the appeal plan earlier this year. At the same time, article 230 protects market platforms from liability for organized retail crime and “triangular fraud”. In addition, legislators have expressed concern about possible discrimination, retaliation and censorship by technology companies on political grounds, such as PayPal’s policy of acceptable use, which was updated in 2022 (allowing a US$ 2,500 fine to users who send, publish or publish content deemed to be “harmful”, and Etsy’s policy on political activities, which was updated in 2024. New legal issues are emerging as LLM and other AI technologies become more widely used on electrician platforms. The summary of the description of the goods generated by AI, the modification of the images provided by the seller, and the control of consumer search and discovery experiences are no longer the original use of information provided by third-party sellers, but are new elements created by platform technology between sellers and buyers. This may make market platforms the publishers of these elements, and even if article 230 is not repealed, may be liable for the resulting consumer injury.
The bill has now been publicly opposed by the industry association TechNet, whose President and Chief Executive Officer Linda Moore said: “Article 230 has been the cornerstone of the modern Internet, driving innovation in the United States, providing millions of jobs and enabling businesses of all sizes to connect customers, share ideas and grow online”. She warned that “the abolition of article 230 would create uncertainty, disproportionately harm entrepreneurs and make it more difficult for start-ups and emerging firms to compete. Abolition will also have more serious unintended consequences — fundamentally changing the way people communicate online, reducing access to information and making it more difficult to protect users, including children and vulnerable groups.” The threat of losing the protection under Article 230 is not limited to direct fines or litigation for electric power platforms. They were further concerned that this could expose the true scale of illegal activities on the platform, thereby affecting the total commodity turnover data published by companies. If investors find that a large number of transactions involve fraudulent, counterfeit or stolen goods, this could lead to a decline in stock prices and trigger shareholder litigation and investigations. If the Termination of Section 230 Act is finally passed, the large technology companies and electric power companies will face major changes and will be forced to assume greater responsibility for the content and commodities on the platform, which may fundamentally change their business model and mode of operation. For consumers, this may mean a safer online environment, but it may also lead to over-censorship by the platform to limit free expression.