A federal appeals court just made it harder for online services, big and small, to get lawsuits over user speech dismissed early. In
California v. Meta
, a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel held that the lower court’s denial of Section 230 immunity to Meta is not immediately appealable. The misguided ruling has the potential to have widespread impact and to threaten the free speech of all internet users.
The ruling is bigger than a loss for Meta, which has the resources to defend itself against these lawsuits. The court’s ruling signals that all online services (and internet users) that host others’ speech—including those without Meta’s deep pockets—must bear the burden and expense of fighting lawsuits that Section 230 ultimately precludes. This will have real consequences, incentivizing online services to take down users’ speech in response to spurious legal threats, filter speech preemptively, or simply stop offering a place for people to speak online. So even though some may think that Meta is not a sympathetic company, the ruling should raise concerns for anyone who cares about an open and free internet.
Immunities from Suit Advance Important Public Interests
A little procedural background is necessary to understand the implications of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Meta had moved to dismiss a group of social media addiction cases brought by state attorneys general, school districts, and local governments. Meta argued that
Section 230(c)(1)
immunity applies because the plaintiffs’ claims, framed as seeking to hold Meta liable for allegedly harmful
platform features
, really seek to hold the company liable for publishing decisions related to
third-party content
. Section 230 is one of the
most important laws
supporting online free speech, because its protections for online services enable them to distribute users’ speech at an unprecedented scale.
The district court ruled that Section 230 does not apply to certain features (and does apply to others) a
… [more]
