The district court erred in dismissing the complaint in this case on the ground that defendant, which owns SnapChat, was immunized by the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230). Under Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009), a defendant enjoys CDA immunity only if it is “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.” Here, plaintiffs alleged that Snap designed its website in a manner that through its Speed Filter and unspecified algorithm for awarding special “awards” encouraged young drivers to speed and record their fast driving in SnapChat videos. The claim did not meet either of the last two requirements for CDA immunity. The claim was against Snap as the designer and manufacturer of a product, its SnapChat website, not as the publisher or speaker of any information. And the claim was not based on any information furnished by anyone.