In a significant development, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected the opportunity to make substantial changes to legal safeguards for internet publishers, as it deliberated on two critical cases.

These cases marked the first direct involvement of the nation’s highest court in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision that shields online platforms from legal responsibility for user-generated content.

The court’s decision comes as a major victory for major technology giants like Google, Twitter, and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, as they heavily rely on the protections granted by Section 230. For Silicon Valley, this law has long been regarded as a cornerstone of the business models employed by numerous internet companies. It empowers these platforms to allow users to freely express themselves on their sites, without the fear of legal repercussions. Additionally, it provides legal immunity to these companies when they undertake content moderation.

The debate surrounding Section 230 has been highly contentious, with political implications. Tech companies have faced intense scrutiny in Washington, with Republicans alleging that these platforms have exploited the law’s protections to suppress right-wing voices. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that Section 230 has enabled platforms to evade responsibility for failing to curb the spread of misinformation.

Technology organizations have cautioned against diluting or eliminating these protections, warning that it could necessitate increased intervention in content removal. The potential for heightened legal liability might force these platforms to be more proactive in removing harmful material from their sites.

The two cases that led to this Supreme Court consideration were brought forth by family members of victims who lost their lives in attacks by ISIS. The plaintiffs accused Google and Twitter of aiding the terrorist organization by allowing it to disseminate content on their respective platforms.

However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish the companies’ culpability. In their decision on the Twitter case, which was published alongside the ruling on the related Google case, the justices stated, “Defendants’ mere creation of their media platforms is no more culpable than the creation of email, cell phones, or the internet generally.”

“Countless companies, scholars, content creators and civil society organisations who joined with us in this case will be reassured by this result,” Google general counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado said in a statement.

“We’ll continue our work to safeguard free expression online, combat harmful content, and support businesses and creators who benefit from the internet.”