ELR Citation: 55 ELR 20114
No(s). 24-2386-cv (2d Cir. Aug 20, 2025)

The Second Circuit vacated a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit concerning a product that disables motor vehicle emissions controls. The federal government sued the company that manufactured and sold the product, arguing it violated the CAA by manufacturing and selling a "defeat device." The company moved to dismiss, arguing the product was not prohibited by the CAA and that it was immune from liability under §230 of the Communications Decency Act because it published, but did not write, the software that disabled the relevant emissions controls and the product allowed users to access and implement the third-party software in their cars. The district court concluded the government sufficiently alleged that the product was a defeat device, but granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of §230 immunity. The appellate court agreed that the product was a defeat device, but concluded that the government adequately alleged the company "directly and materially contributed to" the creation of the software and was ineligible for §230 immunity. It vacated the dismissal on immunity grounds and remanded for further proceedings.