The Supreme Court avoids a topic that some thought may destroy the internet in a victory for Google.

WATERLOO - The Supreme Court avoided a contentious discussion on Thursday about whether Big Tech firms like Google can be held liable for their suggestions in a case that some experts feared might fundamentally alter how the internet functions.

Gonzalez v. Google used a contentious statute called Section 230, which has been commonly construed as protecting websites from legal action for user-generated material. The issue before the court was whether suggestions—such as a suggestion for the next YouTube video to watch—are protected by that legislation. The court granted a significant victory to the social media companies by maintaining Section 230.

The high court deferred the more general problems regarding Section 230 for another day, but the judgements will undoubtedly make it more difficult for Americans to sue computer giants for aiding terrorists.

Families of victims of terrorist acts carried out by the Islamic State organisation in Paris and Istanbul were at the centre of the two lawsuits. The family filed a lawsuit against the social media corporations for allegedly promoting materials that supported terrorist organisations by aiding in their recruiting.

However, the court decided that the link between what the social media corporations did and the assault was "far removed" in a unanimous ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas. The families "failed to allege that defendants intentionally provided any substantial aid" or "otherwise consciously participated" in the attack in Istanbul, Thomas concluded.

The court said it didn't have to address the issues surrounding Section 230 and it disposed of the separate case in a succinct, unsigned opinion because it determined the families were unable to bring a valid lawsuit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which generally permits lawsuits for aiding and abetting terrorism.

Google's general counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado stated in a statement that "numerous companies, scholars, content creators, and civil society organisations who joined with us in this case will be reassured by this result." "We'll keep working to protect free expression online, stop harmful content, and help companies and creators who profit from the internet," the statement reads.

The family of a 23-year-old American slain in a terrorist incident in Paris in 2015 brought the lawsuit against Google. A Jordanian citizen slain in an ISIS attack in Istanbul in 2017 is the subject of a separate legal case. His American-citizen family filed lawsuits against Twitter, Google, and Facebook.

Thomas has expressed his opinions clearly while the Supreme Court considers the case of Google.

Politics: Why Section 230 may be removed in light of Trump, Biden, and Facebook and Twitter

A look at the significant matters that are now before the Supreme Court.

It was evident at oral arguments in February that justices from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum seemed anxious about a broad ruling. The IT companies had contended that if they were held responsible for content suggestions, it may radically alter how search engines, online stores, and other components of the internet operate.

The legislation states that "interactive...computer services" cannot be charged as publishers for supplying material submitted by others since it was passed while most Americans were still dialling into the internet. In other words, a user's libellous tweet cannot be used against Twitter in court. The bill also exempts Big Tech from responsibility for content moderation.

Former President Donald Trump harshly criticised Section 230 after alleging that social media corporations stifled conservative ideas. But many Democrats concur that the statute needs to be updated for several reasons.