How DNA and genetic genealogy might help solve the Nancy Guthrie case

How DNA and genetic genealogy might help solve the Nancy Guthrie case
How DNA and genetic genealogy might help solve the Nancy Guthrie case
In an aerial view, Nancy Guthrie’s residence is seen on February 17, 2026 in Tucson, Arizona. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

(NEW YORK) — Authorities said they’re looking into using genetic genealogy in the investigation into Nancy Guthrie’s mysterious abduction, and an expert says the cutting-edge technique could be the key.

While authorities may find Guthrie’s kidnapper through other avenues of investigation, “if they don’t, investigative genetic genealogy definitely will,” genetic genealogist CeCe Moore told ABC News.

Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie, was kidnapped from her Tucson, Arizona, home in the early hours of Feb. 1 by an unknown suspect.

The FBI ran DNA from a glove found during a roadside search through the national criminal database known as CODIS, but did not get a match to any of the roughly 22 million samples in the database, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said.

That glove — which was found about 2 miles from Nancy Guthrie’s house — also did not match DNA found at her property, law enforcement sources told ABC News.

Moore, a former ABC News contributor, said, “I think we have to exercise a lot of caution in putting too much emphasis on” the glove.

“If it had had Nancy’s DNA, or had matched the DNA at the crime scene, obviously that would be different. But with it being found at such a distance, I always was a little hesitant to get too hopeful about that,” she said. “I think the DNA found at the home is far more compelling.”

While the DNA found at Nancy Guthrie’s property is still being analyzed, the sheriff’s department said on Tuesday that investigators are “looking into additional investigative genetic genealogy options for DNA evidence to check for matches.”

Genetic genealogy takes the DNA of an unknown suspect left behind and identifies the suspect by tracing the family tree through his or her family members, who voluntarily submit their DNA to a genealogy database. Genetic genealogy has been used to solve hundreds of cases since it was first implemented in the 2018 arrest of the “Golden State Killer,” a cold case that had stumped California law enforcement for decades.

“Just like in the hundreds of cases where we’ve been able to identify a violent criminal that couldn’t be found any other way, genetic genealogy has the power to do so through reverse engineering this individual’s family tree based on his DNA alone,” Moore said. “When you have this person’s DNA, you have so much information about their family tree at your fingertips. And so you can piece that tree back together … you just have to spend the time to look at all that information and sort through it.”

“So genetic genealogy often steps in and is successful when all the other leads have been exhausted,” she said.

In the Guthrie case, investigators “were very smart to start [pursuing genetic genealogy] early, and not wait for all those other leads to be exhausted,” Moore said. “Because if he’s not identified any other way, investigative genetic genealogy will definitely be the key — it’s really just a matter of time.”

And when it comes to that timeframe, Moore said, there are two factors: “the population group from which the person of interest descends — and luck.”

“Sometimes you just get lucky and somebody has a close relative in these very small databases,” Moore said.

“If the population group is one that’s not well represented, then that can make it extremely difficult. If the person has deep roots in the United States and primarily Northwest European ancestry, they may be identified in a matter of minutes or hours, because that’s the population group that’s best represented, and it’s also the one that we have the most information about being here in the United States,” she said. “If someone’s born in another country, or even as far back as their great-grandparents were immigrants, there’s far less representation in the databases that we’re able to use, and it’s also more difficult to work with records outside of the U.S.”

In the Guthrie case, law enforcement sources told ABC News on Wednesday that the FBI has reached out to Mexican authorities. There’s no evidence Nancy Guthrie was taken to Mexico, but it’s an avenue investigators are exploring given Tucson’s proximity to the border, the sources said.

If the Guthrie suspect’s parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents were born in Mexico, Moore said, “it will likely take longer.”

Moore said she predicts the genetic genealogy process in the Guthrie case “won’t take more than weeks, maybe months.”

“I have worked on cases for years. However, I don’t think this case will take that long because of the large amount of resources being dedicated to it. I would suspect the FBI genetic genealogy team would be brought in if it takes too long, and they have 200 agents,” she said.

Moore also noted that investigative genetic genealogy can be slowed due to law enforcement’s limited access to DNA profiles.

“There are over 50 million people who have taken direct-to-consumer DNA tests, but most of them are in the three largest databases, and those companies have barred law enforcement from using their databases for these purposes,” Moore said. Currently, law enforcement is limited to accessing three smaller databases, which combined have about 2 million DNA profiles, she said.

“I do expect that if [the Guthrie suspect] is not identified soon, then law enforcement very likely will serve a warrant on those bigger databases” to try to request access, she said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Parents of students at ski academy among California avalanche victims

Parents of students at ski academy among California avalanche victims
Parents of students at ski academy among California avalanche victims
Andrew Holt/Getty Images

(TRUCKEE, Calif.) — The group of skiers involved in the deadly avalanche in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains on Tuesday includes parents, mostly mothers, of students at a local school and ski academy, according to a source involved in the search and rescue effort and a statement from the school.

“Multiple members of the Sugar Bowl Academy community and others with strong connections to Sugar Bowl, Donner Summit, and the backcountry community died in an avalanche on Tuesday, February 17, 2026,” a statement from the school said.

Sugar Bowl Academy is a private independent school boarding and day school designed for competitive skiers. 

A source involved in the search and rescue effort on the scene told ABC News that most of both the deceased and surviving victims of the avalanche are parents connected to the school.

The parents’ kids are on a winter break from school, according to sources familiar. 

Authorities have not publicly identified any of the victims.

Emergency responders “are still working to recover all of the victims and are not at this time sharing the personal details of the victims and the survivors out of respect for the families affected,” the school said in the statement. “Sugar Bowl Academy is similarly not sharing the names of the victims and survivors out of respect for the families affected.”

The statement went on to say, “Sugar Bowl Academy is focused on supporting its athletes, students, staff, and families through this tragedy. Most importantly, the Sugar Bowl Academy community will continue to be there in the months and years ahead for the families that have lost loved ones.”

The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office said earlier Wednesday that 15 people were part of the group of skiers who were caught in the avalanche on Tuesday at the end of a three-day guided trip.

Eight people are confirmed dead and one other person is still missing, but presumed dead, the sheriff’s office said. Of the dead and missing, seven are women and two are men. 

Six people survived the avalanche — four men and two women — and were rescued by crews after sheltering under a tarp for hours amid “highly dangerous” conditions, authorities said.  

The tragedy is the deadliest U.S. avalanche in 45 years, second only to an avalanche that killed 11 people on Washington’s Mt. Rainer in 1981.

A spokesperson for Nevada County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Democrats, White House still far from DHS funding deal amid standoff over ICE

Democrats, White House still far from DHS funding deal amid standoff over ICE
Democrats, White House still far from DHS funding deal amid standoff over ICE
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on February 18, 2026, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — The standoff between Democrats and the White House over Department of Homeland Security funding and immigration enforcement continued on Wednesday, with both sides digging in as the partial government shutdown hit its fifth day.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the counteroffer made by Democrats “very unserious,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries remained firm that Democrats would not back away from their demands for reform.

President Donald Trump, who had said he would be personally involved in negotiations, hasn’t yet spoken with Democrats, according to Leavitt.

“He hasn’t had any direct conversation or correspondence with Democrat lawmakers recently. It doesn’t mean he’s not willing to. I’m just not aware of any conversations that have taken place,” she told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Funding for DHS lapsed on Saturday, affecting agencies like the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

A majority of DHS employees are expected to work during the shutdown, though they could miss a paycheck.

FEMA has paused almost all travel related to the agency’s work, according to multiple sources familiar with the decision, though travel related to disaster relief will continue.

“These limitations are not a choice but are necessary to comply with federal law. FEMA continues to coordinate closely with DHS to ensure effective disaster response under these circumstances,” a FEMA spokesperson said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is at the center of the funding fight after two fatal shootings of American citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection remain operational due to billion-dollar infusions from Trump’s massive spending and tax-cut bill passed by Republicans in Congress last summer.

Democrats have asked for a range of new restrictions on immigration enforcement, including a mandate for body cameras, judicial warrants before agents can enter private property — rather than administrative warrants — and a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks. They also want stricter use-of-force policy and new training standards for agents.

The White House and Democrats have traded offers over the past week, though the details haven’t been released publicly. Both sides have called the other’s proposals “unserious.”

“We’ve been engaged in good faith negotiations with the Democrats … They sent over a counterproposal that, frankly, was very unserious. And we hope they get serious very soon because Americans are going to be impacted by this,” Leavitt said on Wednesday.

Jeffries said Wednesday the ball was in the White House’s court.

“We’ve reiterated our perspective on the types of things that are absolutely necessary in order for a DHS funding bill to move forward, all anchored in this principle that ICE needs to conduct itself like every other law-enforcement agency in the country, and stop using taxpayer dollars to brutalize the American people,” he said. 

Trump said on Sunday he didn’t like some of what Democrats are asking for, and emphasized his administration is “going to protect ICE.”

In the wake of the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis during the administration’s immigration crackdown and resulting protests, an ABC News review found multiple examples of public statements appearing to be in inaccurate that the agency initially made after using force. 

One example occurred last month in Minneapolis when Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan migrant, was shot in the leg by an ICE agent.

At the time, DHS said its agents were “violently assaulted … with a shovel and broom handle.” ABC News obtained a frantic 911 call made by apparent relatives saying agents fired the shot as Sosa-Celis ran away. Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, later said two of his agents appear to have made “untruthful statements” about the moments before the shooting. Both officers were placed on administrative leave and Lyons said they may face federal charges.

Another case unfolded in Chicago last October when Marimar Martinez, an American citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times by federal agents.

DHS initially said that the agents were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.” But an ABC News analysis of video footage shows that agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles, and that at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front. A CBP spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident and the Department of Justice dropped the charges against Martinez.

ABC News’ Luke Barr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

FBI election probe lacks ‘faintest possibility of probable cause,’ Fulton County says in court filing

FBI election probe lacks ‘faintest possibility of probable cause,’ Fulton County says in court filing
FBI election probe lacks ‘faintest possibility of probable cause,’ Fulton County says in court filing
Fulton County Sheriff officers in front of the Fulton County Courthouse on September 06, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has entered a not-guilty plea and waived his right to appear at an arraignment hearing. Trump and his 18 co-defendants are charged in a 41-count indictment accusing them of scheming to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

(FULTON COUNTY, Ga.) — Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, are renewing their effort to have the 2020 election files seized from their election office last month returned, arguing that a recently unsealed search warrant application falls “woefully short” of establishing probable cause of a crime. 

In a court filing Tuesday, attorneys for Fulton County argued that the FBI agent behind the search warrant application “intentionally or recklessly omitted material facts” about purported discrepancies in the 2020 election in Georgia, after the Justice Department last week released the sworn affidavit that was the basis for the search warrant.

“Despite years of investigations of the 2020 election, the Affidavit does not identify facts that establish probable cause that anyone committed a crime,” Tuesday’s filing from Fulton County said. 

FBI agents on Jan. 28 seized 700 boxes containing ballots and other materials associated with the 2020 election from Fulton County’s Elections Hub and Operations Center after obtaining a search warrant. President Donald Trump has repeatedly made baseless claims that there was voter fraud in the 2020 election, specifically in Georgia, despite Georgia officials auditing and certifying the results and courts rejecting numerous lawsuits challenging the election’s outcome.

FBI Special Agent Hugh Raymond Evans said in the sworn affidavit that following the 2020 election “there were many allegations of electoral impropriety relating to the voting process and ballot counting in Fulton County, Georgia” and that “Some of those allegations have been disproven while some of those allegations have been substantiated, including through admissions by Fulton County.”

Fulton County filed a motion earlier this month seeking the return of the records, and revised its request in light of the recently unsealed affidavit. They argue that the FBI’s investigation focuses on “human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election … without any intentional wrongdoing whatsoever.”

“The Affidavit omits numerous material facts — including from the very reports and publicly-disclosed investigations that the Affiant cites — that confirm the alleged conduct was previously investigated and found to be unintentional,” the filing said. 

Attorneys also argued that the FBI’s witnesses are unreliable and that the FBI failed to disclose information that would discredit its own witnesses. 

“The Affiant failed to include facts — including from the very sources he cited — that shut the door on even the faintest possibility of probable cause,” the filing said. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

FBI election probe lacks ‘faintest possibility of probable cause,’ Fulton County says in court filing

FBI election probe lacks ‘faintest possibility of probable cause,’ Fulton County says in court filing
FBI election probe lacks ‘faintest possibility of probable cause,’ Fulton County says in court filing
Fulton County Sheriff officers in front of the Fulton County Courthouse on September 06, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has entered a not-guilty plea and waived his right to appear at an arraignment hearing. Trump and his 18 co-defendants are charged in a 41-count indictment accusing them of scheming to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

(FULTON COUNTY, Ga.) — Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, are renewing their effort to have the 2020 election files seized from their election office last month returned, arguing that a recently unsealed search warrant application falls “woefully short” of establishing probable cause of a crime. 

In a court filing Tuesday, attorneys for Fulton County argued that the FBI agent behind the search warrant application “intentionally or recklessly omitted material facts” about purported discrepancies in the 2020 election in Georgia, after the Justice Department last week released the sworn affidavit that was the basis for the search warrant.

“Despite years of investigations of the 2020 election, the Affidavit does not identify facts that establish probable cause that anyone committed a crime,” Tuesday’s filing from Fulton County said. 

FBI agents on Jan. 28 seized 700 boxes containing ballots and other materials associated with the 2020 election from Fulton County’s Elections Hub and Operations Center after obtaining a search warrant. President Donald Trump has repeatedly made baseless claims that there was voter fraud in the 2020 election, specifically in Georgia, despite Georgia officials auditing and certifying the results and courts rejecting numerous lawsuits challenging the election’s outcome.

FBI Special Agent Hugh Raymond Evans said in the sworn affidavit that following the 2020 election “there were many allegations of electoral impropriety relating to the voting process and ballot counting in Fulton County, Georgia” and that “Some of those allegations have been disproven while some of those allegations have been substantiated, including through admissions by Fulton County.”

Fulton County filed a motion earlier this month seeking the return of the records, and revised its request in light of the recently unsealed affidavit. They argue that the FBI’s investigation focuses on “human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election … without any intentional wrongdoing whatsoever.”

“The Affidavit omits numerous material facts — including from the very reports and publicly-disclosed investigations that the Affiant cites — that confirm the alleged conduct was previously investigated and found to be unintentional,” the filing said. 

Attorneys also argued that the FBI’s witnesses are unreliable and that the FBI failed to disclose information that would discredit its own witnesses. 

“The Affiant failed to include facts — including from the very sources he cited — that shut the door on even the faintest possibility of probable cause,” the filing said. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

NYPD officers who helped rescue injured bald eagle on Hudson River speak out

NYPD officers who helped rescue injured bald eagle on Hudson River speak out
NYPD officers who helped rescue injured bald eagle on Hudson River speak out
NYPD officers help rescue an injured bald eagle on the Hudson River in New York, Feb. 17, 2026. (NYPD)

(NEW YORK) — While surveying ice during a training exercise on the Hudson River on Tuesday, a New York City police officer with the department’s Harbor Unit spotted something unusual.

“Last week, when it was cold, a lot of stuff was getting stuck in the ice, whether it was a float, a buoy, but it looked different,” Officer Michael Russo told reporters on Wednesday. “I could see this white head from a distance. So I said, let’s get a little closer. I said, it looks like an eagle. And turns out it was an American bald eagle.”

Russo, a 16-year veteran of the NYPD’s Harbor Unit, said officers have rescued distressed boaters, sick cruise ship passengers and animals such as dogs while patrolling the city’s waterways. Though a bald eagle was a first.

The injured bird was screeching, wet and bloody, and as the boat approached, it didn’t leave the ice it was floating on, officers said.

Officers said they consulted with the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to see if they should retrieve the bird, and once given the go-ahead, looked up how to safely do that.

“As we got closer, we put a plan together,” Russo said. “We used a catch noose to kind of subdue its wings from flapping and its claws.” 

Another officer, Sgt. Michael Amello, then put a cloth over the bird’s head, to help keep it calm, and got it on board the boat.

“Once we did that, it really didn’t give us a hard time,” Russo said. “I think it kind of knew that we were trying to help it.”

The officers were worried about the bird’s large talons throughout the rescue.

“They don’t really train you for, you know, handling a bald eagle, but we made it work,” Amello told reporters. “It was impressive and kind of scary at the same time, being that close to a bald eagle. The talons were pretty long. But it came on, didn’t put up much of a fight. It was compliant.”

The officers kept the bird on board until they were able to meet with personnel from the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation. 

“It’s an impressive creature. Even in its state, we were kind of taken back by how big it is and just the way it is, and the beauty of it,” Det. Nicholas Martin with the NYPD Harbor Unit told reporters. “It was impressive, to say the least.”

The bald eagle has since been brought to a sanctuary in New Jersey and was reported to be in stable condition, officers said.

The Raptor Trust, a wild bird rehabilitation center in Millington, New Jersey, said Wednesday that the bird is in their care and is “currently in very serious condition.”

“We are doing our best to keep the bird stable, and should it improve, we will do further diagnostics, x-rays and blood work to help determine a course of action going forward,” the center said in a statement.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

NYPD officers who helped rescue injured bald eagle on Hudson River speak out

NYPD officers who helped rescue injured bald eagle on Hudson River speak out
NYPD officers who helped rescue injured bald eagle on Hudson River speak out
NYPD officers help rescue an injured bald eagle on the Hudson River in New York, Feb. 17, 2026. (NYPD)

(NEW YORK) — While surveying ice during a training exercise on the Hudson River on Tuesday, a New York City police officer with the department’s Harbor Unit spotted something unusual.

“Last week, when it was cold, a lot of stuff was getting stuck in the ice, whether it was a float, a buoy, but it looked different,” Officer Michael Russo told reporters on Wednesday. “I could see this white head from a distance. So I said, let’s get a little closer. I said, it looks like an eagle. And turns out it was an American bald eagle.”

Russo, a 16-year veteran of the NYPD’s Harbor Unit, said officers have rescued distressed boaters, sick cruise ship passengers and animals such as dogs while patrolling the city’s waterways. Though a bald eagle was a first.

The injured bird was screeching, wet and bloody, and as the boat approached, it didn’t leave the ice it was floating on, officers said.

Officers said they consulted with the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation to see if they should retrieve the bird, and once given the go-ahead, looked up how to safely do that.

“As we got closer, we put a plan together,” Russo said. “We used a catch noose to kind of subdue its wings from flapping and its claws.” 

Another officer, Sgt. Michael Amello, then put a cloth over the bird’s head, to help keep it calm, and got it on board the boat.

“Once we did that, it really didn’t give us a hard time,” Russo said. “I think it kind of knew that we were trying to help it.”

The officers were worried about the bird’s large talons throughout the rescue.

“They don’t really train you for, you know, handling a bald eagle, but we made it work,” Amello told reporters. “It was impressive and kind of scary at the same time, being that close to a bald eagle. The talons were pretty long. But it came on, didn’t put up much of a fight. It was compliant.”

The officers kept the bird on board until they were able to meet with personnel from the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation. 

“It’s an impressive creature. Even in its state, we were kind of taken back by how big it is and just the way it is, and the beauty of it,” Det. Nicholas Martin with the NYPD Harbor Unit told reporters. “It was impressive, to say the least.”

The bald eagle has since been brought to a sanctuary in New Jersey and was reported to be in stable condition, officers said.

The Raptor Trust, a wild bird rehabilitation center in Millington, New Jersey, said Wednesday that the bird is in their care and is “currently in very serious condition.”

“We are doing our best to keep the bird stable, and should it improve, we will do further diagnostics, x-rays and blood work to help determine a course of action going forward,” the center said in a statement.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to take over as acting head of CDC

NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to take over as acting head of CDC
NIH director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to take over as acting head of CDC

(WASHINGTON) — Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will take over as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a White House official and sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Bhattacharya will continue in his current duties as NIH director until a permanent CDC director is nominated and confirmed, according to the White House official.

He replaces Jim O’Neill, who served as acting director of the CDC from late August 2025 until he stepped down last week.

O’Neill will be nominated as the next head of the National Science Foundation, according to the White House official.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

What is Section 230? Landmark social media lawsuit spotlights legal shield

What is Section 230? Landmark social media lawsuit spotlights legal shield
What is Section 230? Landmark social media lawsuit spotlights legal shield
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images)

(LOS ANGELES) — A landmark trial over social media addiction has drawn fresh scrutiny to a decades-old legal shield: Section 230.

The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.

The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies could be held liable for product design. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying in the case on Wednesday.

The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.

In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.

The tech giants are expected to challenge the plaintiff’s argument that there is a direct link between social media use and mental health issues. They may also invoke legal protection long-afforded by Section 230.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms and other sites from legal liability that could result from content posted by users because they are not deemed to be publishers.

Plaintiffs have sought to circumvent that legal immunity in part by arguing that the platforms are addictive, which amounts to a defect in a product.

Section 230 grants broad protection for internet platforms, saying: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Some tech giants, like Meta and Google, have supported reform of Section 230 that would raise the standard that platforms would need to meet in order to qualify for immunity. But the companies largely support preserving the law in some form to protect them from legal liability tied to user-generated content.

Section 230 has garnered backing from some free-speech advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The measure “​​protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on,” EFF said in a blog post last week, praising Section 230 as “the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.”

In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that upheld Section 230, rejecting challenges from users alleging that harm had resulted from online posts.

One of the cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, concerned a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American woman who was killed in an ISIS terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The lawsuit against Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleged that YouTube recommended ISIS recruitment videos to users. The high court ruled against the plaintiffs.

Many Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to evade accountability for allegedly permitting harmful or misleading content, claiming the rule lets platforms off the hook for policing too little speech.

Republicans have taken issue with what they consider big tech censorship, saying the legal protection allows the platforms to police too much speech without facing consequences.

In December, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which would remove the legal protection from federal law within two years. A bipartisan group of seven senators has signed onto the bill but it remains well short of a majority.

ABC News’ Shafiq Najib contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

What is Section 230? Landmark social media lawsuit spotlights legal shield

What is Section 230? Landmark social media lawsuit spotlights legal shield
What is Section 230? Landmark social media lawsuit spotlights legal shield
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives to the Los Angeles Superior Court at United States Court House on February 18, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (Jill Connelly/Getty Images)

(LOS ANGELES) — A landmark trial over social media addiction has drawn fresh scrutiny to a decades-old legal shield: Section 230.

The case, which began last Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, centers on claims against Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — and YouTube, which is owned by Google. Plaintiffs argue the companies knowingly built features that encouraged compulsive use among young users, contributing to long-term mental health harm.

The case is the first of more than 1,500 similar lawsuits nationwide to go before a jury, potentially setting a precedent for how tech companies could be held liable for product design. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying in the case on Wednesday.

The companies deny the allegations, arguing that mental health outcomes are shaped by a range of factors beyond social media use. They say they have implemented safeguards aimed at protecting young users, including parental controls and accounts designed specifically for teens.

In a statement to ABC News at the start of the trial, a Meta spokesperson said, “We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

Meta said that the company has made “meaningful changes” to its services, such as introducing accounts specifically for teenage users.

The tech giants are expected to challenge the plaintiff’s argument that there is a direct link between social media use and mental health issues. They may also invoke legal protection long-afforded by Section 230.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms and other sites from legal liability that could result from content posted by users because they are not deemed to be publishers.

Plaintiffs have sought to circumvent that legal immunity in part by arguing that the platforms are addictive, which amounts to a defect in a product.

Section 230 grants broad protection for internet platforms, saying: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Some tech giants, like Meta and Google, have supported reform of Section 230 that would raise the standard that platforms would need to meet in order to qualify for immunity. But the companies largely support preserving the law in some form to protect them from legal liability tied to user-generated content.

Section 230 has garnered backing from some free-speech advocacy groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The measure “​​protects internet users’ speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on,” EFF said in a blog post last week, praising Section 230 as “the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it.”

In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that upheld Section 230, rejecting challenges from users alleging that harm had resulted from online posts.

One of the cases, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, concerned a lawsuit brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American woman who was killed in an ISIS terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The lawsuit against Google, the parent company of YouTube, alleged that YouTube recommended ISIS recruitment videos to users. The high court ruled against the plaintiffs.

Many Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to evade accountability for allegedly permitting harmful or misleading content, claiming the rule lets platforms off the hook for policing too little speech.

Republicans have taken issue with what they consider big tech censorship, saying the legal protection allows the platforms to police too much speech without facing consequences.

In December, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act, which would remove the legal protection from federal law within two years. A bipartisan group of seven senators has signed onto the bill but it remains well short of a majority.

ABC News’ Shafiq Najib contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.