The company vigorously disagrees, insisting that its algorithms are content "neutral," taking cues from the interests of the user to organize and present relevant information, and that putting links, videos or tweets in some type of order is an inherent part of publishing in the online age.
Nearly all the justices appeared sympathetic to legal protection for internet companies as publishers, with many voicing concern about a potential flood of lawsuits that could come from ending immunity for algorithms. "Those are difficult issues," replied Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcom Stewart speaking for the Biden administration, which supports lifting the liability shield for how websites organize and present content.
"We're a court. We really don't know about these things. You know, these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet," Kagan said of her colleagues, eliciting a laugh from the courtroom gallery. "There's a lot of uncertainty going the way you would have us go, in part, just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area and just because of the fact that, once we go with you, all of a sudden we're finding that Google isn't protected.