The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull and the aftermath.

The financial times follows the money to find business stories in unexpected places.

We found a surprising one in the porn industry.

I'm Alex Barker, co-host of the FT Pushkin podcast Hot Money.

Through the series, we reveal the real power behind this secretive global business.

You can check out our podcast and read selected articles for free at ft.com slash insights.

If the court kicks this case away because it wants Congress to fix this problem,

what we'll have done is it will have returned the law to the status quo,

which is of a very broad understanding of 230, a very broad one that the companies like,

and therefore, uh, situation which the companies are incentivized to have Congress do nothing,

because they like the status quo.

And so that's like the kind of catch 22 that the court has,

but given how messy oral argument was and given how difficult all the justices,

including 230 skeptics like Justice Thomas or maybe Justice Alito,

given the difficulties they all recognized,

and maybe that they just throw their hands up,

and either for reasons related to the underlying liability theory under the ETA,

...