The prediction is about the outcome of Gonzalez v. Google LLC at the U.S. Supreme Court and its implications for Section 230 protections for recommendation algorithms.

What actually happened:

• The Supreme Court issued its decisions in Gonzalez v. Google LLC and the related case Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh on May 18, 2023.
• In Twitter v. Taamneh, the Court unanimously held that the plaintiffs had not adequately stated a claim for aiding and abetting under the Anti-Terrorism Act, resolving the liability questions in favor of the tech platforms.
• On the same day, the Court issued a short, unsigned opinion in Gonzalez v. Google that vacated and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit in light of the Taamneh ruling, rather than narrowing Section 230. The Court explicitly declined to reach the plaintiffs’ broad theory that recommendation algorithms should fall outside Section 230, and it did nothing to restrict Section 230’s application.
• Commentators and legal analysts widely interpreted this pair of decisions as a substantial win for Google and other platforms, because the Court neither imposed liability in Taamneh nor cut back Section 230 in Gonzalez. The practical effect was to preserve the broad immunity status quo, including for algorithmic recommendations, pending any future, more targeted case.

These outcomes are documented in the Supreme Court’s opinions and summarized in legal analyses, all of which note that the Court avoided narrowing Section 230 and effectively left existing protections in place while ruling for the platforms on the underlying liability theories.

Match to the prediction:

• The prediction: that in Gonzales v. Google the Supreme Court would "rule in favor of Google" and that Big Tech would "win this one," with broad Section 230 protections preserved for recommendation algorithms.
• The reality: The Court did not adopt the plaintiffs’ theory, did not narrow Section 230, and issued decisions in Taamneh and Gonzalez that are broadly regarded as wins for Google and similar platforms, maintaining the de facto protection of recommendation algorithms under Section 230.

While the Court’s procedural posture (vacate and remand rather than a merits ruling squarely expanding 230) is more technical than the podcast’s simplified framing, in practical and legal-effect terms the prediction was directionally accurate: Google and Big Tech prevailed, and broad Section 230 immunity—including for recommendation algorithms—remains intact.

Therefore, the prediction is best classified as right.