9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: No Section 230 Shield for Meta and Google

• The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a bid by Meta Platforms, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok, and Snap Inc. to block massive litigation against them.
• Over 2,400 centralized lawsuits will move forward, alleging that social media platforms were intentionally engineered with addictive features that triggered a severe youth mental health crisis.
• The ruling sets a precedent for holding tech companies accountable for the harm caused by their platforms.
• Lawyers representing clients who have been impacted by social media addiction should watch for the potential for increased liability and damages in similar cases.

The central legal issue before the appeals court was the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability arising from content posted by third-party users.

A major legal setback for Big Tech has been dealt by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected a bid by Meta Platforms, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok, and Snap Inc. to block massive litigation against them. The appeals court allowed over 3,100 centralized lawsuits to move forward, which allege that these social media platforms were intentionally engineered with addictive features that triggered a severe youth mental health crisis. The lawsuits have been brought by individuals, parents, school districts, municipalities, and states, alleging that platforms including Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat were designed to encourage compulsive use among children and adolescents, contributing to mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and body-image issues.

The central legal issue before the appeals court was the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that generally protects online platforms from liability arising from content posted by third-party users. However, the 9th Circuit did not decide the ultimate scope of Section 230 in these cases, instead holding that the companies could not seek appellate review at this stage because the lower court's orders were not final.

The ruling comes amid a series of legal setbacks for social media companies over allegations concerning the impact of their platforms on young users. Section 230 operates as a defence to liability rather than conferring blanket immunity from being sued, according to the appeals court. This means that the companies' attempt to obtain an immediate appellate ruling on the defence was premature. The litigation is being coordinated before US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, and involves over 3,100 cases consolidated in federal proceedings.

In addition to the Section 230 issue, other legal challenges are pending against social media companies. For example, a New Mexico court recently ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund aimed at addressing teen mental health issues after finding that the company had created a public nuisance through its conduct concerning young users. Meta has stated it will appeal this ruling.

The ruling sets a precedent for holding tech companies accountable for the harm caused by their platforms. Lawyers representing clients who have been impacted by social media addiction should watch for the potential for increased liability and damages in similar cases. The decision could also have wider implications, as it allows the underlying litigation to continue without an interlocutory appeal on the Section 230 issue. This means that the companies may ultimately be held liable for the alleged harms, which could lead to significant financial penalties and changes in their business practices.

Lawyers representing clients who have been impacted by social media addiction should watch for the potential for increased liability and damages in similar cases, as this ruling sets a precedent for holding tech companies accountable for the harm caused by their platforms.

Source: Original reporting via San Francisco Appeals Court