Meta can't stop states' $1.4 trillion lawsuit from going to trial

“Meta’s concern over the potential size of the requested remedies rings hollow in light of the evidence the AGs will present at trial,” the state AGs said in a court filing. “The AGs will prove that Meta deceived the public about the safety of its platforms while deliberately designing them to induce compulsive use and increase revenue.” Separate trials will be held in district court for the claims of other plaintiffs, including 25 other state AGs that allege violations of state consumer protection laws and the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Yesterday’s 9th Circuit ruling is also a win for individuals who sued over personal-injury claims, and plaintiffs including local governments and school districts from around the country. “The multidistrict litigation in the district court involves thousands of lawsuits alleging that Meta’s social media platforms Facebook and Instagram ‘encourage addictive behavior, fail to verify users’ ages, encourage adolescents to bypass parental controls, and inadequately safeguard against harmful content and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content,’” the ruling said. A ruling for Meta and TikTok also would have helped Google and Snapchat, because those companies are defendants in the massive litigation being held in US District Court for the Northern District of California. A Reuters article said the consolidated case includes more than 3,000 lawsuits. 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.” 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.