According to Reuters, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday appeared skeptical of arguments from Meta, Snap, Alphabet, and ByteDance seeking to dismiss over 2,200 consolidated lawsuits. The lawsuits, filed by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals, allege platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and TikTok are designed to be addictive, contributing to a youth mental health crisis of depression, anxiety, and body image issues. The companies argue Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants them immunity, but the judges questioned if that law applies to claims about product design, not just third-party content. The panel, including Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Mark Bennett, also doubted whether it was appropriate to hear the appeal now, before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has made final rulings in the Oakland-based litigation. Meta attorney James Rouhandeh argued being forced to defend the suits would be “an enormous thing,” but faced pushback from the bench.
Section 230’s Design Problem
Here’s the thing: this case is trying to poke a huge hole in the traditional shield of Section 230. The companies’ argument is basically the same one they’ve used for decades: we’re not publishers, we’re platforms, and we can’t be liable for what users post. But the plaintiffs, led by Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, are making a clever pivot. They’re saying, “Look, this isn’t about the *posts*. This is about the *features*.”
Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and algorithms that serve up content to maximize engagement. The argument is that these are design choices made by the companies themselves, entirely separate from any specific piece of user-generated content. You could theoretically “remedy” an addictive design without touching a single post. That’s a much harder claim for Section 230 to block. When Judge Nguyen told Meta’s lawyer that the statute’s language doesn’t show Congress intended “immunity from suit,” she was signaling that this might be a bridge too far for the old legal defense.
Why This Appeal Is Early And Risky
The other fascinating part is the procedural dance. Meta and the others are trying to get an appeal heard *before* the trial court has finished its work. That’s unusual. Appeals usually come after a final judgment. So why try it? Because defending over 2,200 lawsuits is astronomically expensive and a PR nightmare. They want it killed now.
But the judges seemed to think that’s putting the cart before the horse. Judge Rogers, overseeing the massive case consolidation, indicated she’d consider the Section 230 argument later. The appellate panel seems to be saying, “Let her do her job first.” By pushing this now, the companies risk getting a negative ruling that not only keeps the lawsuits alive but also sets a broader precedent that weakens Section 230 in future product liability cases. It’s a high-stakes gamble that, from the reporting, doesn’t seem to be going their way in this hearing.
The Real Stakes For Social Media
So what happens if these lawsuits actually proceed to discovery and trial? We’re talking about a seismic shift. Suddenly, internal company documents about how features were designed, what the internal research showed about teen mental health, and how algorithms are tuned could become public. The discovery process alone would be a historic unveiling.
This isn’t just about money, though the damages and penalties sought are colossal. It’s about forcing a fundamental change in how these products are built. If a court eventually finds that certain design patterns constitute a defective or unreasonably dangerous product, it would be the tech equivalent of the tobacco or opioid settlements. The business model itself—engagement at all costs—would be on trial. And that’s a threat Meta and the others clearly believe is worth fighting with every legal tool, even if it means an early, risky appeal. The 9th Circuit’s skepticism suggests the fight is just beginning, and it’s going to be messy.
