The YOLO Remand Shows Why the 9th Circuit Should Stop Carving Up Section 230-Bride v. Snap - Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Menu<br>Biography
Academic Materials
Writing
Presentations
Resources
Courses
Advertising & Marketing Law
Contract Law
Copyright Law
Internet Law
IP Survey
Legal Ethics
Contact
Blogs
Tertium Quid Blog
Eric Goldman’s Personal Blog
About the Blogger
Browse: Home<br>" 2026<br>" May<br>" The YOLO Remand Shows Why the 9th Circuit Should Stop Carving Up Section 230–Bride v. Snap
The YOLO Remand Shows Why the 9th Circuit Should Stop Carving Up Section 230–Bride v. Snap
May 20, 2026 · by Eric Goldman · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability, Licensing/Contracts, Marketing
This is the remand of the troubling Ninth Circuit Section 230 decision in Bride v. YOLO. As you may recall, the plaintiffs claims that YOLO made statements about its content moderation and the safety of its environment that the plaintiffs believe were not true; and based on that, YOLO should be liable for users’ physical and emotional harms. In its prior ruling, the Ninth Circuit said that Section 230 doesn’t apply to promise-based claims. That ruling allowed the plaintiffs to proceed against YOLO even though YOLO’s challenged statements clearly never made any enforceable promises.
YOLO stopped paying its lawyers and stopped fighting in court, so it defaulted in the case. That makes me wonder who can pay off any judgments against YOLO if YOLO is already gone?
Either way, the plaintiffs are proceeding without any opposition from YOLO. And yet…their case is so unmeritorious that the plaintiffs can’t get an unopposed default judgment. Obviously defective cases are what the Ninth Circuit thought was worth wrecking Section 230 to preserve…?
In the past 2 months, the district court has twice rejected a default judgment:
Bride v. Snap, Inc., 2026 WL 855148 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 2026)
In the March ruling, the court rejects class certification. The court flags numerous problems with class formation:
if the defendant has defaulted, can a class claim really be adjudicated properly?;
The class claims 26M users, but the plaintiffs based the numbers partially on vibes;
the class includes non-bullied users and, remarkably, the alleged bullies;
the named plaintiff’s suicide-based claim materially differs from other claims of bullying;
the plaintiff lawyers’ interest in the case seems to be waning (maybe because YOLO is judgment-proof?);
"What is “bullying” in this context? What are “harassing messages,” “objectionable content,” and “inappropriate usage”? Who are “abusive users”? How severe or frequent does a user’s conduct have to be for Yolo to be required to take action?"; and more.
Substantively, the court questions the claims’ merits:
here are Yolo’s statements that Plaintiffs challenge in this case as fraudulent misrepresentations:
• “YOLO is for positive feedback only. No bullying. If you send harassing messages to our users, your identity will be revealed.”
• “YOLO has no tolerance for objectionable content or abusive users. You’ll be banned for any inappropriate usage.”
• “Be kind, respectful, show compassion with other users, otherwise you will be banned.”
The court is hard pressed to conclude that the TAC adequately alleges that, as to element one, those statements were plausibly false promises to future bullying victims (as opposed to threats to bullies); that, as to element two, Yolo knew that by making these statements it was making false promises to future victims; as to element three, that Yolo intended to induce reliance from future victims that Yolo would take affirmative action if bullying, harassment, inappropriate usage, unkind, disrespectful, or noncompassionate behavior occurred; or, as to element four, that that any reliance Plaintiffs exhibited on these statements as promises that Yolo would take such action was justified.
The court adds: "there is a serious question regarding whether the statements challenged as misrepresentations are puffery." Yes, claims about on-site safety are often puffery. All of this was obvious from the face of the complaint.
In other words, the district court is flummoxed by the aftermath of the venerable Ninth Circuit Section 230 switcheroo. The Ninth Circuit negated Section 230 for promise-based claims, but the "promises" here were never actually promises and thus could never form the proper basis of a claim. Thus, reviving the case gave false hope to the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit has made similar 230 switcheroos at least a dozen times, each time benefiting no one.
The court continues:
Yolo’s First Amendment defense also comes into play here. “Content moderation by social media platforms is generally considered expressive activity and is protected under the First Amendment.”…Consider, for example, a scenario in which this case had proceeded through discovery and Yolo contended that it reviewed some of...