Unmoderated Discrimination: Amending Section 230 to Facilitate Online Platform Accessibility
As debates regarding Section 230 continue, questions remain as to the scope of its conferred immunity and whether it should be amended and scaled back. Left underdiscussed is the difficulty of managing content access on platforms alongside structural access to the platforms themselves. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been inconsistently applied to online platforms and Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 acts as a secondary barrier waiting to block structural access when people with disabilities seek equal and fair access to online content.
This Note explores the intersecting doctrinal and policy challenges of the ADA and the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which created Section 230, and reviews how courts have upheld digital accessibility barriers that stem from both schemes. As products of an early Internet regulatory environment, the ADA and CDA desperately need 21st century overhauls. This Note focuses discussion on how future amendment can harmonize the two and alter Section 230 to remove categorical immunity defenses for online platforms where hosted content contributes to digital inaccessibility.
Christian J. Rozolis
J.D. 2025, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. I’d like to extend my gratitude to Professors Pamela Samuelson and Silvia Yee for their support and thoughts as I wrote this piece; to Professor Blake Reid for his expertise and generous feedback; and to the editors at GLTR whose edits and recommendations helped finalize and sharpen this piece. I’d also like to thank my family, my friends, and of course my wonderful partner Vicky Ho who tirelessly supports me every day.