So, I think the bigger issue is that those things may not serve as an independent basis for liability. But (B) then says that those things may be considered as

So, I think the bigger issue is that those things may not serve as an independent basis for liability. But (B) then says that those things may be considered as evidence if they’re otherwise admissible (under the Federal Rules). In other words, encryption by itself does not expose them to liability, but those who might get sued could have encryption used against them as evidence that they “knowingly” possessed, transmitted, etc. CSAM. If robust encryption makes it more difficult to identify or stop CSAM trafficking, and a service refuses to compromise its encryption, that could be used as evidence against them. That’s the fear, anyway.