Platform Liability and Content Curation: The Implications of TikTok’s U.S. Court Ruling for South Africa

In a landmark ruling, a Pennsylvania court decided that TikTok must face a lawsuit over its algorithmic recommendations, which allegedly led to the deaths of several children participating in the viral "blackout challenge." The court found that TikTok’s For You Page (FYP) recommendations amount to the platform’s own speech, making it potentially accountable for the content it promotes. This ruling could have significant implications for jurisdictions outside of the U.S., including South Africa, where online platforms have increasingly come under scrutiny for how their algorithms push content.

The heart of this case lies in the distinction between third-party content and platform-driven speech. Typically, platforms like TikTok are shielded from liability for user-generated content by laws such as Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, which limits their accountability for the posts users make. However, the Pennsylvania appeals court emphasized that TikTok’s algorithm, which actively curates and promotes content on its FYP, constitutes TikTok’s own speech. This is a crucial distinction. In essence, the court argued that when TikTok's algorithm recommends content to users without requiring specific input, it is more than just a passive host of third-party content—it is actively engaging in expressive conduct. As a result, TikTok could be held liable for the harm caused by the content its algorithm promotes.

This ruling raises the question of what similar legal standards could look like in other countries, such as South Africa. In South Africa, there is no direct equivalent to Section 230, but the broader principles of liability for online platforms are still developing. If a similar case were to arise, South African courts might examine the extent to which a platform's algorithm curates and promotes harmful content. South African law strongly emphasises the rights to dignity, safety, and protection from harm, and platforms that engage in expressive actions, such as algorithmically promoting harmful content, could be seen as failing in their duty of care to users.

For South African entrepreneurs, especially those operating tech platforms or using algorithms to curate content for users, this ruling serves as a critical warning. The court's decision highlights the potential risks of relying on algorithms to recommend or promote content without sufficient oversight. Entrepreneurs should consider the following key legal and business implications:

1. Algorithmic Accountability: Platforms with recommendation algorithms may be held responsible for the outcomes of the content they push to users. Entrepreneurs developing platforms that use algorithms to curate content must ensure that they have systems in place to prevent harmful or dangerous content from being promoted.

2. Content Moderation and Curation: The line between third-party content and platform-generated content is becoming increasingly blurred. In the South African context, this raises important questions about platform responsibility under laws like the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), which governs how personal data is handled, and the Film and Publication Act, which regulates online content. If algorithms are curating harmful or dangerous content, platforms may face legal consequences under these laws.

3. Duty of Care: The Pennsylvania ruling suggests that platforms can have a duty of care toward their users when their algorithms actively curate content. In South Africa, where the Constitution places a strong emphasis on protecting citizens from harm, especially vulnerable groups like children, there may be similar expectations of online platforms. Entrepreneurs must ensure that their platforms do not inadvertently contribute to harmful outcomes through careless content promotion.

4. Legal Precedents and Global Trends: While this ruling applies in the U.S., it reflects a growing global trend toward greater accountability for tech platforms. Courts in other jurisdictions may look to rulings like this when interpreting local laws. South African entrepreneurs should be aware that similar legal developments could influence the regulatory landscape in South Africa, making it essential to stay informed about international legal trends and adjust business practices accordingly.

5. Compliance and Risk Mitigation: To avoid potential legal challenges, South African entrepreneurs should consider implementing robust content moderation strategies and invest in technology that helps detect and prevent the promotion of harmful content. Regular audits of algorithms and their outcomes may also help mitigate risks.

In conclusion, the Pennsylvania ruling against TikTok marks a significant shift in how courts view platform accountability for algorithmic recommendations. For South African entrepreneurs, this decision offers important lessons on the risks of relying on algorithms to push content to users. It emphasizes the need for platforms to adopt greater responsibility and transparency in curating content and suggests that courts in other jurisdictions, including South Africa, may increasingly hold platforms accountable for the harm caused by their recommendations.

The StartUp Legal is a legal consultancy that provides quality legal services and support to SMEs, at affordable rates. For personalized legal advice and support, consider consulting with The StartUp Legal, your trusted partner in navigating the legal landscape of entrepreneurship. Book a complimentary consultation with us using the following link: https://calendar.app.google/nLai4FuNmJ5jSJA2A