Judge rules Snapchat immune from distracted driver claim

A loss for Snapchat would have been dangerous, opening a floodgate of lawsuits for everyone from cell phone manufacturers to billboard advertisers to makeup brands — virtually anyone that can potentially cause a distraction from driving.

The judge found that the claims against Snapchat were barred by the immunity clause of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

A key question is whether Snapchat had a legal duty because Wentworth's injury was predictable, given that other users are alleged to have had wrecks while using the speed filter, and therefore should have removed or restricted access to the filter once it found out about those crashes, the judge wrote.