Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers (ISPs) in dealing with terrorism-related content posted by users and hosted on their servers.

[5] In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the family focused more on the YouTube algorithm that has been tailored to deliver content believed to be of interest to the end user, arguing that while this was automatically done, it was a form of moderation that Section 230 does not fully cover.

Interactive computer services constantly direct such recommendations, in one form or another, at virtually every adult and child in the United States who uses social media.

Justice Clarence Thomas had spoken to a need to review Section 230 in previous dissenting statements to court orders, arguing that social media companies should be regulated like "common carriers", which would prohibit content-based discrimination.

While there is general support for updating Section 230 to reflect modern concerns, these briefs broadly stressed the need to let Congress pass legislation rather than having the Supreme Court issue its own judgement.

In Twitter, the Court unanimously held that the families' claims against the social media companies were not allowable under the Antiterrorism Act, and did not make any ruling related to Section 230.