Appeals Court Makes It Harder to Defend Platforms Under Section 230

A federal appeals court has made it harder for online services — both large and small — to win a quick dismissal of lawsuits tied to what their users say. In California v. Meta, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that a lower court's refusal to grant Meta immunity under Section 230 cannot be appealed immediately. In the EFF's assessment, the ruling could affect everyone who values an open internet.

What the case is about

Meta sought to dismiss a group of “social media addiction” lawsuits brought by state attorneys general, school districts and local governments. The company argued that Section 230©(1) applied, because the claims — nominally aimed at the platform's “harmful features” — were in essence tied to decisions about publishing content created by others. The district court found that immunity applied to some features but not others, and to that extent denied dismissal. Meta appealed at once, but the question came down to whether such an appeal was even permissible.

Immunity from suit or from liability

As a general rule, only a court's “final decisions” can be appealed. The exception is the “collateral order doctrine,” which allows an immediate appeal when continuing the proceedings would jeopardize a substantial public interest. The key question: does Section 230 confer only “immunity from liability,” or the stronger “immunity from suit”? In the first case, waiting for the proceedings to conclude does the defendant no harm — an appeal can set things right afterward. In the second, the whole point of the immunity is to get out of the case as early as possible.

The panel concluded that Section 230 protects only against ultimate liability. The EFF calls that conclusion absurd: it contradicts the text of the statute (subsection (e)(3) expressly bars bringing suit under inconsistent rules), the intent of the lawmakers, and the court's own prior practice. In particular, the panel disregarded the landmark decision in Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com (2008), in which the full Ninth Circuit recognized that Section 230 protects sites “not only from ultimate liability, but also from having to fight costly and protracted legal battles.”

Why it matters

Meta has the resources to litigate for years. But Section 230 is no gift to Big Tech: it protects every intermediary, from giant social networks to neighborhood forums, local providers, and even users who forward someone else's email or run a blog with comments. If an early denial of immunity cannot be appealed right away, small sites will have to slog through years of discovery and court proceedings before their defense kicks in.

Hence, the EFF warns, a perverse incentive: to delete users' speech at the first threat of a lawsuit, to filter content preemptively, or to give up on hosting anyone else's words altogether. The EFF sees the ruling as part of a broader trend: a year earlier, in Gopher Media v. Melone (2025), the same court reversed its own position and refused to allow an immediate appeal under California's anti-SLAPP statute as well.

Source: EFF Deeplinks