Gonzalez Rogers imposed some limits on the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that “Section 230 insulates the design and deployment of most features alleged to be unfair or unconscionable.” But she declined “to dismiss at this stage theories of liability predicated on a failure-to-warn of known risks of addiction attendant to any platform features or as to platform construction in general.”
The denial of Meta’s motion to dismiss is called an “interlocutory order” because it’s not a final judgment in the case. Interlocutory decisions generally can’t be appealed immediately, but there are exceptions.
Meta claimed that rulings denying Section 230 immunity are “collateral orders” and thus can be appealed before a case has a final judgment. But Meta needed to show, among other things, that the district court’s decision is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”
Judges deny immunity
Meta argued that the 9th Circuit itself “has repeatedly held that Section 230 confers immunity from suit.” The judges’ panel acknowledged that the court has “used the phrase ‘immunity’ somewhat loosely in our section 230 jurisprudence,” but said that word usage is not binding, “because we have never addressed whether the denial of a section 230 defense is a collateral order.”
“Only the Tenth Circuit has squarely addressed the issue before us, and it concluded that section 230 ‘provides immunity from liability, not suit, and [a] district court’s order [denying immunity] does not qualify under the collateral order doctrine,’” the 9th Circuit decision said.
The law does not have an explicit guarantee that a trial will not occur, and immunity from lawsuits is a benefit usually reserved for government officials, the court said, agreeing with the 10th Circuit analysis.
“Therefore, we hold that Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit, and an order denying this defense can be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment,” the 9th Circuit said.
In yet another case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general, a state-court judge last week ordered Meta to pay $567 million for youth mental health care and related services to alleviate the “public nuisance” created by its social media platforms. Meta was also ordered by a jury to pay $375 million in civil penalties during an earlier phase of the New Mexico case.