In recent years, the streaming service Netflix has faced more lawsuits than a news publication. The company insists that they are not obligated to verify the products they trade. However, some judges believe that Netflix is not just a regular distributor and should therefore regulate content more rigorously. So, what's the issue?

In 2020, global streaming volume increased by at least 12%, according to Forbes, partly due to the lockdown. As a result, Netflix's audience grew by a record 37 million people, reaching 200 million subscribers, compared to 100 million in 2017. Google search trends show that nine out of the top ten most popular series in 2020 were Netflix series. At least one of these series led to a lawsuit against the streaming service.

For instance, in the series "The Queen's Gambit," a commentator in the last episode says, "There is Nona Gaprindashvili, but she is the world champion among women and has never played against men." In reality, as early as 1968, Gaprindashvili, the first woman to receive the title of International Grandmaster, played against 59 male chess players, including 10 grandmasters. "The Queen's Gambit" became Netflix's most successful miniseries, and Nona Gaprindashvili demanded compensation.

"Making a Murderer," another Netflix series, sparked outrage from former detective Andrew Colborn, who was mentioned in it. Colborn claimed that the documentary's creators edited Steven Avery's trial testimony, mismatching answers to different questions and omitting significant evidence, leading viewers to believe that Colborn was involved in fabricating evidence against Avery. The ex-detective sued the documentary's creators and Netflix for defamation.

The number of such incidents is growing — in recent years, Netflix, which releases documentaries and series, has faced more defamation lawsuits than major news publications. But the question arises — should a streaming service be legally responsible for the projects it promotes? Let's examine the arguments for and against.

"Neither a provider nor a user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," — this is the main part of Section 230 of the 1996 American Communications Decency Act. This provision shaped the internet as it exists today.

Section 230 consistently irritates people regardless of their political preferences. For instance, Professor Michael Smith noted that the legal immunity provided by this section reduces platforms' incentives to remove potentially harmful or dangerous content. Former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized it for allegedly allowing platforms to censor conservative messages and favor liberals. However, Section 230 still operates and is regularly cited by Netflix lawyers.

As the company's lawyers rightly point out, no one in their right mind would sue a newsstand or bookstore, as its owner cannot read everything they sell. Netflix positions itself primarily as an online cinema. Therefore, being a regular distributor, it should not be legally responsible for the content it hosts. At least until a court deems the content dangerous and orders its removal.

However, Netflix is not just a regular distributor, as American judges have pointed out. For example, the service received four prestigious Emmy Awards in 2016 alone for "Making a Murderer." The company's vice president, Peter Friedlander, calls "The Queen's Gambit" "our biggest miniseries ever." This behavior is not typical for a content distributor; cinemas do not take awards for the movies they show and do not call them "our projects." The company's PR activity contradicts the arguments its lawyers present in court.

Moreover, Netflix's legal battles are part of a global process. State regulators have accumulated numerous complaints against IT companies for hiding behind the law and preaching a policy of non-interference instead of enhanced content moderation.

The European Union is working on the Digital Services Act, one of its goals is to combat human rights violations, including on internet platforms. Christel Schaldemose, one of its developers, states that the bill should be much tougher on platforms. Australian Communications Minister Paul Fletcher expects a stricter stance from platforms, arguing that IT giants should be responsible for content published on their sites. In China, in July of this year, major online platforms like Kuaishou, QQ, Taobao, and Weibo were explicitly ordered by state regulators to remove inappropriate children's content.

Section 230, to which Netflix lawyers consistently appeal, is a dream of a free internet that did not come true. Written in 1996, it was not prepared for modern challenges and failed to provide an adequate response. Therefore, today, state authorities are independently seeking solutions that ultimately lead to stricter regulation.

So, we return to the question — should a streamer be legally responsible for the projects it promotes? Under current legislation, Netflix has the right to insist on an analogy with a cinema or a bookstore. But everything happening in the world right now suggests that the internet giant will soon have to take a much tougher approach to regulating and filtering content.