The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases—and is considering accepting more—that may expose social media companies to significant financial liabilities and state regulation in the future. All concern the manner in which public discourse occurs online and whether social media companies should have responsibility or control over the content that appears on their platforms.

The issue in the first case, Gonzalez v. Google, No. 21-1333, is whether §230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or whether it only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information.

In the second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, No. 21-1496, the Court has been asked to decide (1) whether a social media company that provides generic, widely available services to its users, and that regularly works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services, knowingly provided substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. §2333, the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA), if it allegedly could have taken more meaningful or aggressive action to prevent such use, and (2) whether a social media company whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific act of international terrorism that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under §2333.