A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday signaled that Meta Platforms and other major social media companies are unlikely to have lawsuits related to youth social media addiction dismissed at an early stage. During the hearing, judges questioned not only the timing of the companies’ appeal but also the limits of legal immunity under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal in which Meta, Snap, Alphabet, and TikTok’s parent company ByteDance sought to halt more than 2,200 consolidated lawsuits. These cases are being heard together in the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California.
Final Call: FCRF Opens Last Registration Window for GRC and DPO Certifications
The lawsuits, filed by several U.S. states, municipalities, school districts, and individual plaintiffs, allege that platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube were deliberately designed to encourage excessive and compulsive use among children and teens. Plaintiffs claim that this has contributed to a surge in depression, anxiety, self-esteem issues, and negative body image among youth, now considered a national mental health crisis.
Meta, leading the appeal, argues that these cases should not move forward. The company contends that Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for content posted on their services. According to Meta and other tech firms, this protection also extends to allegations that they failed to warn users about the addictive nature of their platforms.
However, the appeals panel expressed skepticism over this interpretation. Judges repeatedly questioned whether Section 230 could be read so broadly as to shield platforms from all claims related to design or product architecture.
All the cases are pending before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who in 2023 and 2024 allowed most of the claims to proceed. Social media companies have challenged these rulings at the appellate level to seek relief before the cases reach trial.
During the hearing, Meta’s lead attorney James Rouhandeh argued that Judge Rogers’ orders were effectively final because they compel the companies to engage in long, complex, and costly litigation. He said that forcing defendants to face such cases would impose an enormous burden, especially if the claims are ultimately barred by federal law.
Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, appointed by former President Barack Obama, rejected this argument, noting that Judge Rogers had explicitly stated she would revisit Section 230 immunity claims at a later stage. Nguyen also questioned Meta’s reading of the statute, stating, “When Congress intends to grant complete immunity from suit, it says so clearly.” She added that the language of Section 230 does not support the company’s sweeping immunity claim.
Plaintiffs argued that their claims focus not on third-party content but on features designed and controlled by the companies themselves, such as algorithms, notification systems, and user engagement tools.
Shannon Stevenson, Colorado’s solicitor general representing several states, told the court that these features could be modified without reviewing any user content, placing them outside Section 230 protections.
The panel also included Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, appointed by former President Donald Trump, and U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Both questioned the clarity of Meta’s immunity arguments, indicating they were not as straightforward as the companies suggested.
The lawsuits seek damages, civil penalties, and restitution. Legal experts say the forthcoming decision could set a critical precedent for interpreting Section 230 and defining the responsibility of social media companies.
The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 24-7032, before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A ruling is expected in the coming months, closely watched by the tech industry and policymakers alike.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
