Snapchat Sued For Facilitating 107 MPH Car Crash (patch.com) 496
An anonymous reader writes: A Georgia couple is suing Snapchat, a popular instant messaging and photo sharing app, after a car accident last year seriously injured the husband, leaving him permanently brain damaged. According to media reports, Wentworth Maynard, the victim, was driving in a 55-mile-per-hour zone when 18-year-old Christal McGee crashed into him traveling at 107 miles per hour. McGee, according to lawsuits, was attempting to use Snapchat's "speed filter" -- a feature that overlays the speed one is traveling on a picture. "Snapchat's speed filter facilitated McGee's excessive speeding," reads the lawsuit. "McGee was motivated to drive at an excessive speed in order to obtain recognition through Snapchat by the means of a Snapchat 'trophy.'"
Fast enough to crash (Score:5, Funny)
But not fast enough for first post!
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm going to go with "Hey, here's a feature which might attract a lot of users, and therefore, we'll have a higher valuation. Consequences be damned."
Never attribute to evil what can be adequately explained by stupidity or greed.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh come one information is information, snapchat isn't responsible for how people use it. Even the OEM GPS in my car keeps track of the "Max Speed" since the unit was reset and makes the info available to the user. One person might use that to check up on their kid in a non intrusive post facto way after lending them the car, for some idiot it might look like a "high score".
As soon as you crying about letting people measure things you are heading down a slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
a "Hold My Beer" function is a bad idea (Score:3)
any feature that risks
http://www.mofo.com/people/a/a... [mofo.com]
being on the other side of the table in a lawsuit
SHOULD NOT BE CREATED
i think at MoFo the interns make more money than most of us here
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't know about the MoFos... MoFo represented Novell against the Litigious Bastards (SCOXQ)
Re: (Score:3)
It does make you wonder what Snapchat was thinking with this feature. Did nobody anticipate that jerks would drive crazy speeds because of this thing?
Their EULA [snapchat.com] makes a gentle suggestion that you not be reckless:
We also care about your safety while using our Services. So do not use our Services in a way that would distract you from obeying traffic or safety laws. And never put yourself or others in harm's way just to capture a Snap.
Jerks (Score:2)
Do jerks need a reason to drive stupidly fast?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reality check. Whether or not snapchat bore any responsibility[*] for contributing to the tendency to reckless endangerment, the recklessly dangerous driver is completely at fault. Her shitty judgment and lack of impulse control is the one NECESSARY link in the chain of events. Driving with reckless endangerment is ALREADY against the law.
[*] My opinion is, none whatever, but that is beside the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to open that can of worms, I suggest we then start suing car manufacturers for not having 80 MPH limiters in place on all new North American sold vehicles. Because it does make you wonder what Ford was thinking selling a Focus that can go 121 MPH. Did nobody anticipate that jerks would drive at crazy speeds because of that?
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
it does make you wonder what Ford was thinking selling a Focus that can go 121 MPH. Did nobody anticipate that jerks would drive at crazy speeds because of that?
Ford isn't awarding trophies for taking the car to 121 mph in city traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither is Snapchat, unless of course you can show me their "107 mph in city traffic" award. There are several places people can take their phone and go 107mph legally though. Just like there are several places you can take your Focus and drive 121MPH legally. In fact I am sure there are more places you can take the phone than the car.
Re: (Score:2)
grr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The driver in the 107 mph car is most likely dead. No one to sue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt she has coverage that will cover $500,000 in medical bills. With head trauma and several broken bones, hospital stays can be measured in months and they'll happily charge you $20 for an aspirin and $2,500+ per day to sit in the ICU. Not to mention the multi-thousand dollar tests and bills from specialists. Then all the PT, psych therapy, medications and possibly home nurses if he's really bad off.
I don't know anyone with insurance quite that cool. Hell, I have the state minimum $25,000/$50,000 l
Re:grr (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you say Medicare and Disability..... Medicare only covers about 80% and it usually takes at least a year to get disability and medicare and usually there's hearings and lawyers involved. He probably wouldn't get Medicaid either if his wife is working.
Meanwhile, he could lose his health insurance, house and car because he can't work.... and his wife may crack under the stress of trying to take care of someone with brain damage and the financial strain of covering him under her health insurance which her employer won't kick out extra for.
But we don't want socialized health care in this country cuz.... ya know.... freedom.... and it could never happen to *ME*.
Re: (Score:2)
Not-a-lawyer disclaimer.
Anyway, in a case like this the decisions will assign responsibility by percents. If the injured parties are suing to cover his medical and continuing care expenses then they're likely not going to get any help by suing the girl alone. Even if a court says SnapChat could have foreseen the consequences and only assigns 2% of the blame to them it could help cover his medical expenses for years.
The foresight does have an affect legally.
Re: (Score:3)
This reminds me of a vodka drinking contest someone organized in Russia -- the winner died on the spot, the runner up was hospitalized. Russian authorities DID start a criminal investigation. How is this different?
Re:grr (Score:5, Insightful)
The filter encouraged the driver to travel at 107 mph in a 55 zone. It doesn't matter who was holding the phone.
How do you figure? Let's accept the fact that there is a 100mph trophy, which appears to be in debate, but let's just accept it as true. Then snapchat encouraged users to go fast. Are there many legal and safe ways to go that fast? Yes. Plane, train, passenger on a racetrack (yes there are options for that), etc. It is not an achievement for going 107mph in a 55mph zone. It was not for going faster than the speed limit. It did not encourage illegal behavior. It encouraged, at best, behavior that is the users responsibility to determine a safe time and place to perform.
My fitbit encourages me to run. It does NOT encourage me to run into traffic. It does not encourage me to plow others out of my way so I can run on a crowded path. My scuba computer tracks my max depth, so is it encouraging me to dive deep? Sure, especially when combined with online dive logs. Is it encouraging me to go deeper than I know by my training to be safe for my training and equipment?
No. It is my responsibility as a human with a brain to determine when activities are acceptable. It wasn't a death toll counter or encouraging anything with no legal opportunity. It wasn't financially incentivizing illegal behavior (the equivalent argument to paying someone to punch someone else).
The driver is responsible for their actions. They drove a car at nearly twice the legal speed limit. That was their decision, and that responsibility is on them.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article:
Passengers in McGee's vehicle have said she was trying to take a picture of herself while traveling over 100 mph when she hit Maynard.
The driver was taking the picture.
thank god for lawyers (Score:2)
they are the only industry that has figured out how to earn money on stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Error. Illogic detected. Maximization of personal gain is not stupidity.
Why are they not suing the driver? (Score:2)
Re:Why are they not suing the driver? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing.... snapchat explicitly gives a warning to users to *NOT* do what this person did... While sure, people can be idiotic and ignore this warning, the fact that they might do so is *NOT* snapchat's fault.
Really, this is about on par with blaming a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death when the gun itself was not faulty.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, this is about on par with blaming a gun manufacturer for a wrongful death when the gun itself was not faulty.
Well, Sandy Hook parents are suing Remington because they made the gun that was used in the shooting....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the kid who crashed into them were a multi-millionaire, Snapchat's involvement would have never even been a talking point.
If the multi-millionaire properly structured their finances, the deep pockets won't be so deep for a lawsuit. These lawsuits are always about milking the most money for the attorneys.
Re: (Score:2)
They are suing Snapchat and the driver. The more pockets in the suit and the deeper the pockets the higher the likelihood of a settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's missing the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3)
A few things missing here.. (Score:2)
Sue Snapchat? While it's probably the most misguided app feature in a long time, I'm still not sure how they're culpable for somebody recklessly driving. Did they say "hey go out and snap a selfie going as fast as you can! We'll give you a prize?" What about the car manufacturer, it ultimately was the weapon in the crash or how about the cell phone manufacturer for allowing selfies to be taken while the car is in motion? How about the cellular carriers, they allowed the pic to be transmitted while at
Driving 100mph (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting "using Snapchat" (or any other distraction) aside, I've heard of people seeing how fast their cars would go before. Back in college, a close friend of mine went 100mph on a straight, deserted road just to see what it was like. Even then, I told him that was idiotic. I've done 80mph on highways before and I could feel my control of the car slipping. At 85mph, I'd be much more prone to an accident. I couldn't even conceive of doing 100mph. I'm sure there might be some who could do 100mph safely, but this is a minority. Unfortunately, there are a lot more people who think they can do 100mph safely but can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on the highway. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people drive 100MPH or more every week on the Autobahn, and Germany's highway fatality rate is lower than that in the US.
100MPH on in the rain on a crowded 2-lane road with a 50MPH speed limit? Really dangerous.
100MPH on a clear day on a multi-lane highway where the average driver in the middle lane is going 80MPH or more? Not a problem.
Re:Driving 100mph (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the car, there are cars you won't even realize you're going at 100mph and cars that at 75mph feel like they're falling apart.
Exactly. Also, one has to consider the age. I'm not sure how long "back when I was in college" was for GP's anecdote, but stability at high speeds has increased significantly (in my experience) for "normal" cars in recent years.
If you drove most cars 25 years ago at 85 mph, they would feel jittery, handle poorly, engine would feel taxed, etc. If you drove a luxury sedan 15 years ago, you might get a smooth ride at 85mph, but your average car would still feel like it was falling apart or at least taxed.
You cannot sue morons (Score:2)
What trophy? (Score:2)
I have never used Snapchat but I googled for their trophies and I just don't see any "speed trophy" - there are trophies for all kinds of things, but speeding is not one of them. Could someone please enlighten me what's this trophy they talk about?
NO!!!!!! (Score:2)
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!
It is the driver using the app/device's fault NOT the app's fault, not the phone's fault.
The people filing the suit should be shamed out of the country.
Better sue the car maker that put a speedometer in the car too!
Obviously the responsability is on max speed (Score:3)
Kind of like Periscoping your own DWI (Score:3)
There are a few cases a year (one recent one was local to us) where a dummy uses Periscope to live-stream their drunk driving. Then they're shocked when the police thank them for providing vital evidence in their case. I read this Snapchat story a couple days ago - obviously it finally got far enough in the court system to be picked up publically because it's being reported everywhere now.
It seems to me that if Snapchat weren't a hip, cool Internet startup, something like a speed filter and/or trophy would have immediately been squashed by even the most clueless in-house legal team. In "real businesses" it's their job to ensure that products don't get released that can lead to lawsuits, or if they can, to minimize their impact. I can just see the discussion around a conference table in Snapchat's HQ about this awesome new feature that uses the GPS to tag a user's speed -- "Wouldn't that be epic? "Yeah, let's do it!" was probably the only consideration it was given.
Obviously, the idiot driver was at fault, but if you're an accident victim, you'll try to recover anything you can. Apparently the other driver in the crash is permanently disabled and has traumatic brain injury as a direct result. You can bet that the first thing that Christal's family did after the crash was to hide their assets and declare bankruptcy. Wentworth will wait for decades to get any sort of compensation from insurance companies, let alone punitive damages.
Welcome to America (Score:3, Informative)
In addition, we have an 18 y.o driver (2 years of experience), WITH A FRIEND, driving over 100 MPH in a 55, while using a phone illegally, and the car goes after snapchat.
What our fascists does not destroy, lawyers will.
Re:driving lockout when phone active (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you tell the difference between the driver's phone and a passenger's phone? These is little issue with passengers using phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like, just because there was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, how do we know the DRIVER was partaking? Objections like yours (and mine) do not change anyone's mind because their mind is made up. Authoritarian tools with "go ahead, tread all over me" written on their back will just continue to spout their rote drivel: "well, that proves my point - in both c
Re: (Score:2)
The "open container" issue is linked to drinking in public and not driving so it is a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, assholish police-state laws are all in the same category. Anyway, the reasoning is very much related.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you tell the difference between the driver's phone and a passenger's phone?
A weight sensor in the passenger seat. Many cars already have those, so they can warn if the passenger seat belt is unfastened, and adjust the force of the passenger airbag depending on the size of the passenger. If there is no passenger, then the system could assume that any phone in the car belongs to the driver.
People could bypass the lockout by putting a sandbag in the passenger seat, so it wouldn't be a 100% solution. But an 80% solution may be better than nothing.
We could also, or alternatively, pu
Re:driving lockout when phone active (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - not to mention the problem with passengers in the car having a phone - or people just hacking the phone to disable whatever triggers they car's lockout.
Besides - with self-driving technology improving as fast as it is, I doubt this will be an issue for much longer anyways. In 15 years very few humans will be "driving" cars.
Re:driving lockout when phone active (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had two narrowly avoided head-ons with texters holding their phones across the top of their steering wheels, and neither of them were millenials.
They were people roughly my age -- and my first video game system was Pong.
Re: (Score:2)
new law proposal: for millennials to get drivers licenses, they must install a lockout mechanism in the vehicle, similar to a brethalyzer, that will disable the ignition or accelerator if a phone is active in the vehicle.
I'll ignore the conundrum of passenger phones this time...
A lockout doesn't address the actual problem, which isn't the phone. It's poor driving ability and distractedness. Removing the phone will not stop an idiot from being an idiot, it might help, but isn't a solution.
We need to make the driving tests harder. And not just for new licenses. Teach them about consequences. Perhaps even implement using a phone while on the drive test like this [youtube.com]. Simply taking away their toys isn't going to help, they'll find
Re: (Score:2)
you mean like in a motor cycle... yeah that will work!! and no one will ever buy a motor cycle again either.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's not frivolous for the victim -- they're just going after who has the most money.
--
In Theory, Theory and Practice are the same; in Practice, they're different.
Bloom County: Steve's Law Tips (Score:3)
The whole thing reminds me of this Bloom County: http://www.gocomics.com/bloomc... [gocomics.com]
Chances are the whole lawsuit is predicated on the idea that the plaintiffs will get a lot more from Snapchat than they will from an 18 year old.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
There is no evidence that Snapchat has a "speed" trophy. There is a site [snapchattrophies.com] that tracks them.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence that Snapchat has a "speed" trophy. There is a site [snapchattrophies.com] that tracks them.
Snapchat does not keep a list of the trophies publicly available. Read the comments on your link and you will see people claiming to have found trophies not in the list.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
Here [snapchattrophies.com] is the link to the new trophies (the link is in the update of the article). "Speed" is still not there.
Re: Frivolous lawsuit (Score:3)
If fairly certain snapchat can delete entire trophies from their system.
Can someone explain to us folks who have already graduated high school why the world needs another messaging that is capable of sending photos and why the fuck does it needs trophies?
My generation pioneered social networks and frankly I'm disappointed that the only thing they've added to messaging apps in the last decade or so has been trophies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Frivolous lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad this Darwin award could have taken 5 other people with it.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions. Reasoning like yours is fucking retarded beyond all reason or logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what he was doing was dangerous.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me, what he was doing? He's the one who got ran into!
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
So, because I made a minor typo, the entire message was lost on you? God damn you're a fucking idiot. Let me spell it out: Snapchat isn't forcing you or anyone else to make bad decisions. If you make a bad decision that's on you and nobody else.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe Snapchat creating a way to overlay your speed on a picture was a "bad decision". As in, what are people going to do ... oh yeah, that's right, they are going to see how FAST THEY CAN GO.
Re: (Score:3)
wait... i get rear ended, by a car going 50 miles over the speed limit... i don't care what the fuck you're doing... you could be black out drunk and stopped and i'd still say it wasn't your fault.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
It only takes 2 seconds to travel the length of a football field while going 100mph. The car may not even have been in view when they started pulling out and then suddenly it smashed into them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
Unless their actions involve encouraging dangerous behavior, in which case you seem to think they deserve a free pass.
Re: (Score:3)
Everything in the newspaper is true, except the things i know about.
Don't kid yourself. Same shit different day. My generation, or yours was no better, and no worse.
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay someone $100 to punch someone else in the face, you've still committed a crime. Encouraging irresponsible behavior in others is irresponsible.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what he was doing was dangerous.
The victim here wasn't speeding, or doing anything dangerous. It's not the person speeding who is suing.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
If you pay someone $100 to punch someone else in the face, you've still committed a crime. Encouraging irresponsible behavior in others is irresponsible.
There is a huge difference between paying someone to do something which is clearly illegal and having a daft game where people can compete completely legally. If you believe snapchat is guilty then does that also make say a day care centre which charges exorbitant late pick up fees liable too because it encourages parents to speed so they get there in time? or would whoever delayed them be liable?
Going this route leads to madness. If a person chooses to avoid a legal way to complete some task and makes a conscious decision to choose an illegal route in order to get a better outcome then the responsibility for that decision must lie with them. Let's face it the only reason snapchat is getting sued here is because they have money. The person at fault here is the idiot driving at 107mph but they probably won't make much money of someone stupid enough to be doing that so they go after the person with the money no matter how unjustifiable it is.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that the victim's mother (the plaintiff) doesn't want to hold the other driver responsible; it's that Snapchat has a shitload more money to go after, so if she can get a jury to agree that they were complicit, she can recover damages (money) from them. Few rational people probably believe on the surface that Snapchat is responsible for the reckless behavior of its users, but lawyers in courtrooms can be very convincing. That's how they put food on their tables, and Mercedes in their garages.
Re: (Score:2)
And is why lawyers needs to be held responsible for the damage they've done to this country.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the 18 year old very likely only had basic liability insurance that wouldn't cover 1/10th of this guy's current and future medical bills. Suing her would at most get you a court judgement she'll never be able to honor and she'll be back on the road soon enough once her suspension is up.
He was nearly killed because she wanted a "cool" picture to show her friends how badass she is... brain damage usually means part of him is dead and he'll never be the same. Snapchat offering an asinine feature that encourages people to be stupid makes them partially at fault. And they have the money to cover his medical bills which will likely be in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Along with the years of PT, psychological therapy and medications he'll need.
This guy is ruined for life and will probably never be able to work again. I don't blame them for going after SnapChat, it's likely the only way he'll be able to get medications and care after he leaves the hospital. The kid won't be able to pay for shit.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions. Reasoning like yours is fucking retarded beyond all reason or logic. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what he was doing was dangerous."
No shit, people like the suit filers are why the human race can be declared a failed species that needs to be eradicated...
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
How is this any different?
Snapchat isn't paying you, and their app says not to use it while driving. That's pretty much the complete opposite of your scenario. I agree that they'll probably share some culpability in the end, but having this dumb speed filter thing is absolutely not the same as telling someone to drive as fast as possible with reckless abandon. The latter is a feature built-in to most teenagers, phone/app/camera or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By assigning a "Trophy" for traveling a certain speed, they are creating an addicting experience
I crave Slashdot mod points. I get an endorphin rush every time one of my insightful posts (like this one) goes to +5. Sometimes I post while driving. If I crash, should I be able to sue Slashdot? Should I be able to sue the people that mod me down, thus requiring me to make even more posts to get high?
Re: (Score:2)
And if people disagree with you then don't forget to demand a safe room to hide from all the mean criticism.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I get an endorphin rush every time one of my insightful posts (like this one) goes to +5. Sometimes I post while driving. If I crash, should I be able to sue Slashdot?
If you could directly correlate posting to Slashdot with the risky behavior... by, say, basing mod points on how fast you were driving when you posted... then yes.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point us to any proof that a trophy for speed exists? I can't find any information indicating that this trophy actually exists other than info on this lawsuit saying the teen was trying to get it. Unless anyone can prove that this trophy is real, or that snapchat is somehow encouraging people to drive over the speed limit then this looks pretty frivolous.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply going at that speed isn't risky. Most people are going faster than that in an airplane.
Just because they award a trophy for something that you can be a complete idiot and try to achieve in an unsafe way, doesn't mean they company is at fault.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Funny)
I wish Snapchat would offer an IQ overlay filter. If the highest one broke 90, I would be surprised.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
1. On a train.
2. On a bus.
3. On an aircraft.
4. As a passenger in a car.
Re: (Score:2)
But that achievement doesn't exist, so how is it snapchats fault?
Re: (Score:3)
Ok - so the users were morons, but there are plenty of completely legitimate ways to go 100MPH.
If they offered a trophy for snapping a picture of 10 Snickers bars and someone goes and steals them to achieve it, the company isn't at fault for "encouraging" theft - they would be offering a trophy for something achievable using completely legitimate and legal means, and the idiotic user decided to do something illegal as a shortcut.
Re:Frivolous lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
Example:
I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
Or (a less funny more real life expample)
Someone finds a girl to be pretty. She's obviously "asking for it." Therefore she asked to be raped.
No. "Incentive" is not an excuse. People are responsible for their actions,
Something similar is in fact law (Score:3)
> I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
There's a well-established legal principle that the recipient of a slap can indeed incite the slap. For example, if I were to call your wife a nasty hoe, a fucking cunt, and you immediately punched me in the nose, most jurisdictions would recognize that I would indeed have some responsibility for what happened.
Whether or not you or I LIKE that principle is a differen
Re:not so fast... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you hold Snapcat liable if they recorded the surrounding temperature and someone tried to maximize it by sitting in an enclosed car in the hot sun and died? All Snapchat did was to record a readily available piece of GPS data. It is the fault of the driver that she tried to maximize it. Snapchat does not have a "speed trophy". They even show a warning not to use Snapchat while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is showing off or competing, or trying to share their environmental temperature in the same way. That logic is a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
I know there can be a kneejerk libertarian argument for personal responsibility, but certainly a rational observer could reasonably entertain the idea of "contributory negligence" against Snapchat.
Obviously we need to limit speedometers.
Or cars that go so fast. And GPS that shows speed. And even tachometers (Hey, it's not my fault I blew the engine, it's Ford's because they installed a tachometer that went up to 8000). Also, anemometers; we can't have people putting those on their vehicles to determine excess speed.
Blame the manufacturers!
No. A RATIONAL observer cannot reasonably entertain that idea. Blame the PERSON. THEY used it recklessly, NOT the people who designed/built it. The ONLY person resp
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that by the existence of a function that promotes recording your speed -- within an application that is designed to share exceptional experiences -- you might reasonably think that people would be driven to get into situations that would result in exceptional speeds. Hmm?
And do you really think that most people, even as passengers, are recording photos of themselves
Re: (Score:2)
The TOS is between Snapchat and a user. This lawsuit is from an accident victim and not a Snapchat user. The TOS does not apply to the accident victim.