By Griffin Reid
Snapchat, an app most people are now familiar with, is a highly popular mobile app that allows its’ users to send photos or videos which self-destruct and vanish within a few seconds. Due in large part to the user’s ability to send photos and videos without having to worry about where they end up after being sent, snapchat has developed into one of the most popular and widely-used mobile apps in the world today, with its now estimated 200 million active users.
Due to its continual increase in popularity, it is of little surprise that the company has continued to give the user more and more new ways to add pizzazz to the snaps they send by giving them the option to add various visual effects to them. One of the effects users can add to their snaps is the speed filter feature. The speed filter feature allows the user to show the speed they are traveling on the same screen as the snap in real time. While this may seem harmless and fun on the surface, the feature is already being blamed for causing numerous and sometimes very serious car accidents.
The issue gained national spotlight this past April when an 18 year old girl going over 100 mph in a 55 mph speed limit zone crashed into a merging vehicle. Both vehicles suffered considerable damage and the driver of the other vehicles had to spend 5 weeks in intensive care and now needs a wheelchair to get around and cannot work. After the accident, the 18 year old girl, who also suffered head injuries from the accident, explained that she wanted to go over 100 mph so she could take a picture on Snapchat, overlay the speed filter, and send it out to impress her friends. Since then there have been numerous other incidents of accidents purportedly being caused by this Snapchat feature and subsequent lawsuits alleging Snapchat is liable for the harm caused to 3rd parties by another driver’s use of the filter. These repeated occurrences now pose the question: is Snapchat liable to 3rd parties harmed by accidents facilitated by the use of the speed filter feature? Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a simple answer. It is not certain as to whether Snapchat will be liable for injury brought about by the use of the filter, but we can at least take a look at what you can expect the courts to look at in determining an answer to this issue.
First off, Snapchat has an obligation under law to not place inherently dangerous items into the stream of commerce, and if they do, they have the responsibility to take steps to eliminate the risks associated with their products. However, for the company to be liable to a 3rd party for harm caused by a feature of their product, it must have been foreseeable to them that the product was dangerous. In other words, it has to be foreseeable that this feature is likely to cause their users to act in a way that is likely to cause injury to others.
To analyze whether snapchat had or should have foreseen this, it helps to look at the statistical information regarding car accidents in the United States today. For example, a study done by AAA found that nearly 60 % of moderate-to-severe teen crashes were caused, at least in part, by distracted driving. In addition, approximately 60 % of Snapchat users are between the ages of 13 and 24 and 11 % admit to using Snapchat while driving. It is also reasonable to posit that this 11 % is even higher in actuality, as there may very well be a level of discomfort young people feel in admitting to the fact they drive distracted. With these facts in mind, it is perfectly logical to believe that a “reasonable person” would understand that creating a filter predominantly used by young people, to send out the rate of speed they are traveling, could lead to distracted driving resulting in injury to another person.
It seems as though accidents caused by the Snapchat speed filter and the consequent injuries to other drivers were or should have been foreseeable to Snapchat, but that still does not automatically put the liability on the shoulders of Snapchat. You would next have to look into whether or not the company took sufficient steps to eliminate the risk posed by this speed filter feature. Snapchat argues and was quick to point out, that there is a disclaimer that reads “Do NOT Snap and Drive” when you use the filter. However, it will be up to the courts to decide if this disclaimer for the feature will be enough to get Snapchat off the hook.
It is completely plausible for the courts to consider the only way to eliminate risk associated with the feature is to eliminate the feature from the app all-together, or at least take further steps such as disabling the feature once it reaches a certain speed. For a company worth $16,000,000,000, it does not seem as though eliminating this one feature would be particularly too burdensome. It is not clear as to what conclusion the courts will ultimately come to regarding Snapchat’s liability and their speed filter feature, but to a reasonable mind, the risk the filter carries far outweighs its benefits, and the elimination of the feature could give some peace of mind to both the Snapchat user, and Snapchat, knowing the company will not add to the already serious and sometimes deadly problem of distracted driving.
Student Bio: Griffin is a staff member on the Journal of High Technology Law. He is currently a 2L at Suffolk Law and a member of the Legal Honor Society of Phi Delta Phi. He possesses a B.S. in Psychology and Economics from Ithaca College.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
