KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti alongside a coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a brief at the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Google, according to a release from the Tennessee AG’s Office.

The case of Gonzales v. Google stemmed from a lawsuit because of Nohemi Gonzalez’s death, the Attorney General’s Office said. She was one of at least 130 killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris by ISIS-affiliated terrorists, according to the Attorney General’s Office. The 62-page petition to the Supreme Court alleges that YouTube knowingly permitted ISIS to post hundreds of radicalizing videos on YouTube that incited violence and recruited potential supporters to join ISIS forces and to conduct terroristic attacks in their home counties.

“Gonzalez’s family filed suit alleging that YouTube’s algorithms led users toward recruitment videos for ISIS, and therefore Google, YouTube’s parent company, was partially responsible for Nohemi’s death.” Skrmetti’s Office explained.

The release says that the amicus brief was filed to urge the Supreme Court to interpret section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act passed in 1996 narrowly. The Attorney General’s office says this interpretation would ensure that technology companies continue to be accountable to state consumer protection laws.

Read the full amicus brief below.

“Big tech is not above the law,” said General Skrmetti. “Over the years, Section 230 has been increasingly misread as giving tech companies total immunity from legal liability. This case gives the United States Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify that the law means what it says, that Section 230 provides important protection to promote free speech but it does not give tech companies a free pass to hurt their users.”

The issue to be determined by the Supreme Court is if Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act “immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information.” according to the SCOTUS Blog.

“Google claimed that Section 230, which says internet companies cannot be liable as publishers for material posted by users, prevented any liability, that the trial court decided that Section 230 meant a court could not consider whether the company might be liable for the effect of its algorithms, and a divided panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.” Skrmetti’s Office said.

If the Supreme Court finds in favor of Gonzales and adopts a narrower interpretation of the law based on the text of the statute, the Attorney General’s Office says that companies will no longer be able to claim blanket immunity under Section 230 and that States could hold technology companies accountable for unfair and deceptive conduct toward customers.

In addition to Skrmetti, Attorney Generals from other states that have joined in the effort include those from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.