By Diana Novak Jones
Jan 6 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday appeared inclined to allow lawsuits alleging major social media platforms were designed to be addictive for young users to proceed, as several judges questioned whether it was too early to consider whether the companies are immune from such claims.
Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms and other social media companies urged a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse rulings forcing them to face
more than 2,200 lawsuits.
The companies, which also include Snapchat and parent Snap Inc., YouTube and parent Alphabet Inc. and TikTok and parent ByteDance, argue that a federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields them from liability stemming from what is posted on their sites, including allegations they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms.
Filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, the lawsuits allege that social media has contributed to a wave of depression, anxiety and body image issues in children, creating a mental health emergency among American youth in recent years.
The cases, which have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek damages, penalties and restitution from the companies. The companies are appealing Rogers’ orders in 2023 and 2024 that largely allowed the litigation to move forward.
An attorney for Meta, which led the companies' appeal, faced skeptical questions from all three of the judges on the panel, who questioned whether it was appropriate for the appeals court to weigh in at this early stage in the case, as Meta was requesting. Most appeals come after a court has made a conclusive, final decision in a case, the judges said.
Meta attorney James Rouhandeh responded that Rogers' orders were conclusive because they force Meta to defend against the litigation.
"It would be an enormous thing to require defendants to have to defend these types of suits," especially when they are precluded by Section 230, Rouhandeh said.
Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, said Rogers had indicated in her orders that she was open to considering the companies' argument that they are shielded from liability later in the litigation.
All three of the judges also questioned Meta's argument that Section 230 provides the companies with immunity from all lawsuits.
The plaintiffs argued that Section 230 doesn't cover the claims in the lawsuits because it only protects against liability related to content published by third parties on the websites.
"Here our complaints are about features that they can remedy without looking at any third party content at all," Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado who is representing the states that have sued, told the panel.
Meta's argument that Section 230 shields the company from all the plaintiffs' claims isn't borne out in the statute's language, Nguyen told Rouhandeh.
"When Congress wants to give immunity from suit, it knows how to say that," Nguyen said.
Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, an appointee of President Donald Trump, and U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation, who was appointed by Republican former President George W. Bush, were also on the panel.
The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-7032.
For Meta: James Rouhandeh of Davis Polk
For the individual plaintiffs, school districts and municipalities: Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler
For the attorneys general: Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson
(Reporting by Diana Novak Jones)
