Meta and TikTok failed to secure an early appellate ruling that could have cut off a major wave of social media addiction lawsuits. The Ninth Circuit dismissed their appeals on August 10 as premature, leaving thousands of cases against major platforms moving forward in lower courts.
The ruling does not decide whether Section 230 ultimately protects the companies from liability. It decides something narrower: Meta and TikTok cannot use the statute at this stage to obtain immediate appellate review and avoid continuing to defend the litigation.
The Ninth Circuit did not decide Section 230
According to Reuters, the appeals challenged lower-court rulings that largely allowed lawsuits against major social media companies to proceed. The cases include claims from states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals who allege platform designs contributed to addiction and mental health problems among young users.
One of the consolidated appeals is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, No. 24-7032. Meta and TikTok argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should shield them from the litigation before the cases advanced further.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that procedural route. The court treated Section 230 as a defense to liability rather than a categorical right to avoid being sued, making an immediate appeal premature. A previous Ninth Circuit opinion likewise described Section 230(c)(1) immunity as an affirmative defense.
Plaintiffs are trying to separate their claims from the third-party content Section 230 traditionally protects. They argue that features and design choices intended to increase engagement can themselves be defective or harmful, regardless of the specific posts users encounter.
That argument has not been settled by this ruling. Meta, TikTok, and other defendants can still raise Section 230 as the cases develop, and plaintiffs still have to prove that the challenged designs caused the harms they allege.
The addiction lawsuits are producing different outcomes
The broader litigation has already moved beyond motions to dismiss in some cases.
In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube liable for negligently designing their platforms and failing to warn about risks to a young user. The jury awarded $6 million, assigning $4.2 million to Meta and $1.8 million to Google. TikTok and Snap settled before that trial.
Other cases have ended without verdicts. Google settled YouTube claims brought by a Florida teenager in June, while Meta later avoided a separate July addiction trial when the plaintiff dropped the remaining claim against the company.
Those differing outcomes are an important limit on what can be inferred from the Ninth Circuit decision. Allowing litigation to continue does not establish that the platforms caused a plaintiff’s injuries, and it does not require Meta, TikTok, YouTube, or Snap to change specific product features.
For now, the companies must continue defending cases built around alleged harms from platform design. The harder legal question remains unresolved: whether particular claims challenge a platform’s own product design independently enough from third-party content to avoid Section 230 protection.
That issue can return to appellate courts after lower courts produce final decisions. The August 10 ruling simply means Meta and TikTok did not get an early exit.
Also read: Meta was recently ordered to pay $567 million and overhaul protections for minors on Facebook and Instagram under a separate New Mexico court ruling.
Other Articles
No Comment! Be the first one.