The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 10 that more than 3,000 lawsuits alleging major social media companies designed their platforms to be addictive to children can move forward, rejecting appeals by Meta, TikTok, Google, and Snap that sought to use Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a shield against litigation before trial.
Key Takeaways
- A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dismissed appeals by Meta, TikTok, Google, and Snap, ruling that Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from being sued, and that the companies’ appeals were premature.
- The ruling allows more than 3,000 federal lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, school districts, municipalities, and individuals to proceed before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California.
- The court separately denied Meta’s emergency motion to delay a trial brought by 29 state attorneys general, set to begin with jury selection on August 13 and opening arguments on August 18.
- Prior verdicts in related cases include a $6 million jury award against Meta and Google in Los Angeles (March 2026) and a combined $950 million in penalties and court-ordered funds against Meta in New Mexico.
- The 9th Circuit did not rule on whether Section 230 ultimately bars claims based on platform design, leaving that question for trial courts and future appeals to resolve.
The Court Drew a Line Between a Defense and Immunity
Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen authored the 24-page opinion in Personal Injury Plaintiffs v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (9th Cir., No. 24-7037), along with several related docket numbers covering parallel cases filed by state attorneys general and individual plaintiffs. The central legal question was whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally shields online companies from liability for content posted by users, also grants those companies immunity from being sued over how they designed and operated their platforms.
Meta and TikTok argued that Section 230 conferred broad immunity that entitled them to an immediate appeal before trial. The 9th Circuit disagreed. Nguyen wrote that Section 230 “merely provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit,” a distinction with concrete procedural consequences. Because the statute offers a defense rather than blanket immunity, the companies cannot invoke it to stop litigation before a trial court reaches a final judgment. The ruling means the cases must proceed through discovery, motions, and potentially full trials before the Section 230 defense can be tested on appeal. Nguyen had signaled skepticism toward the companies’ argument during oral arguments in January, observing that when Congress intends to grant immunity from suit, it uses explicit language to do so.
The Consolidated Litigation Spans States, School Districts, and Individual Plaintiffs
The lawsuits at issue have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California under the multidistrict litigation docket In re Social Media Adolescent/Personal Injury Products Liability. The plaintiffs include state attorneys general, municipal governments, school districts, and individual families. The central allegations across the cases are that Meta, Google, TikTok, Snap, and other platforms engineered addictive algorithms, failed to implement adequate safeguards for underage users, and withheld information about the mental health risks associated with their products. The companies have denied the claims.
The litigation has already produced financial outcomes in parallel proceedings. In March 2026, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found Meta and Google negligent in the first bellwether trial to reach a verdict, K.G.M. v. Meta et al., awarding $6 million to a plaintiff who alleged she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child. In New Mexico, Meta’s cumulative exposure has reached approximately $950 million, combining a $375 million verdict from March with a $567 million youth mental health fund ordered by a judge on August 7. A separate state trial against Meta is also underway in Tennessee. The first school district trials are not scheduled to begin until February 2027.
A 29-State Trial Against Meta Begins This Week in Oakland
Alongside its ruling on the broader appeal, the 9th Circuit denied Meta’s emergency motion to postpone a trial brought by 29 state attorneys general. The trial, scheduled to begin with jury selection on August 13 in federal court in Oakland, alleges that Meta unlawfully collected and used children’s data, designed Instagram and Facebook to keep young users engaged through addictive mechanisms, and misled consumers about the safety of its platforms. Opening arguments are expected on August 18, and the trial could run for several weeks.
Meta had sought a stay of the trial while its Section 230 appeal was pending. The 9th Circuit found that motion moot on the same jurisdictional grounds as the broader ruling: the court has no authority to hear the appeal at this stage, so it cannot grant relief tied to it. The denial leaves the trial date intact. Both Meta and Google have indicated they plan to appeal the 9th Circuit’s ruling, though the procedural posture limits their options until the trial court proceedings are complete. TikTok and Snap settled with the plaintiff in the Los Angeles bellwether case before that trial concluded.
State Legislatures Are Moving in Parallel With the Courts
The courtroom developments are unfolding alongside a national wave of state legislation targeting minors’ social media use. At least 20 states have enacted laws addressing how platforms interact with underage users, and more than 300 related measures were introduced across at least 40 states and Puerto Rico during the 2026 legislative session, with 10 states enacting new laws or adopting resolutions. In July, Illinois enacted a law prohibiting platforms from using minors’ viewing histories or device data to curate content feeds, with an effective date of 2028. The Illinois law also restricts push notifications to minors between 10 PM and 7 AM and requires stronger default privacy settings for underage accounts.
The tech industry has pushed back against these measures through NetChoice, a trade association representing Meta, TikTok, and other platforms, which has challenged state laws on free speech and privacy grounds. The tension between legislative action and industry resistance mirrors the dynamic playing out in federal court, where the core question remains unresolved: whether the design of a platform, as distinct from the content users post on it, falls within the scope of Section 230’s protections. The 9th Circuit deliberately avoided answering that question in its August 10 ruling, concluding only that the appeal was procedurally premature. That means the substantive legal battle over platform design liability is heading to trial, not away from it.
FAQs
Did the Court Rule That Section 230 Does Not Protect Social Media Companies?
Not exactly. The 9th Circuit ruled that Section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from being sued. The court did not reach the question of whether Section 230 ultimately bars claims based on platform design. That question will be decided at trial and in future appeals after a final judgment is entered.
What Happens Next in the Litigation?
The more than 3,000 consolidated federal lawsuits will continue before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. A trial brought by 29 state attorneys general against Meta is scheduled to begin with jury selection on August 13. The first school district trials are expected in February 2027.
How Much Have Social Media Companies Already Paid in Related Cases?
In the first bellwether trial to reach a verdict, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6 million against Meta and Google in March 2026. In New Mexico, Meta faces approximately $950 million in combined penalties and court-ordered funds from a $375 million verdict and a separate $567 million youth mental health fund. TikTok, Snap, and YouTube reached settlements in the Los Angeles case before the trial concluded.
