The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco dismissed the companies’ attempt to overturn a lower court ruling that mandated they face over 3,000 lawsuits regarding these claims filed in federal court, determining that the appeal was premature in the litigation process.
The defendants, which also include Snap Inc.’s Snapchat, contended that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 — which generally protects online companies from liability for user-generated content – also prevents lawsuits claiming they neglected to inform the public about the addictive qualities of their platforms.
Typically, appeals occur after a case concludes with a ruling or verdict. Meta argued that Section 230 granted it extensive immunity and that it should be allowed to appeal the lower court’s decision right away. However, the 9th Circuit ruled that Section 230 provides a defense against liability, not immunity from lawsuits, rendering the appeal untimely.
The court also rejected Meta’s request to delay an impending trial set to begin on Wednesday, involving a lawsuit filed by 29 state attorneys general, which alleges that the company unlawfully collected and utilized children’s data, designed its social media platforms to maintain young users’ attention, and misled consumers regarding safety. Meta had claimed that the trial could not proceed while the appeal was pending.
A spokesperson for Meta and the lead attorneys representing the appeal did not immediately reply to requests for comments.
THOUSANDS OF LAWSUITS
These lawsuits, initiated by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals, assert that social media companies have deliberately ensnared young users, contributing to escalating rates of depression, anxiety, body-image issues, and a broader mental health crisis among American youth in recent years.
Parents, school districts, states, and other plaintiffs contended that the trial court’s decision was not final, and therefore, could not be appealed. They also disagreed with the companies’ interpretations of Section 230, insisting that it does not encompass claims concerning their operational and product design practices. The cases, centralized before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek damages, penalties, and restitution from the companies. The companies appealed Rogers’ 2023 and 2024 orders that largely permitted the litigation to continue.
In addition to this, the companies are encountering hundreds of other lawsuits with similar allegations in state court, with about 3,300 cases consolidated in California state court.
In the first lawsuit from the California litigation to go to trial, and a closely observed examination of how juries may react to similar claims, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in March for creating social media platforms that negatively impact young individuals. The jury awarded $6 million to a now-20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube during her childhood.
Furthermore, Meta faced setbacks in a significant lawsuit filed by New Mexico in state court. A jury ruled in March that it must pay $375 million for misleading consumers regarding the safety of its platforms. On Thursday, a judge determined that Meta had established a public nuisance, compelling it to pay an additional $567 million and implement youth-safety measures.
Both Meta and Google, which have refuted the allegations in these cases, indicated they would appeal.
