Browse Cases
23 resultsDoe v. Grindr Inc.
Issue: Whether Section 230 bars state law product liability and negligence claims brought by an underage user against Grindr based on alleged design defects, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation, and whether plaintiff stated a plausible TVPRA sex trafficking claim sufficient to invoke FOSTA's exception to Section 230 immunity.
This decision reinforces broad Section 230 protection for dating and social platforms against product liability and design defect claims when those claims are characterized as targeting the platform's publisher function over third-party content. The ruling also establishes a demanding pleading standard for invoking FOSTA's exception to Section 230, requiring plaintiffs to plausibly allege knowing participation in or benefit from sex trafficking—a threshold this plaintiff could not meet despite allegations of underage use and harm.
View on CourtListener →Karam v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Issue: Whether Section 230 bars claims against Meta arising from the company's decision to ban or restrict plaintiff's Facebook account and its alleged failure to prevent other users from posting content about plaintiff.
This decision reinforces the broad application of Section 230 immunity to platform account termination and content moderation decisions, extending publisher immunity not only to third-party content but also to the platform's own editorial decisions about which users may access its services. The ruling demonstrates courts' continued willingness to apply Section 230 at the motion to dismiss stage to bar claims challenging fundamental platform curation functions including account access decisions.
View on CourtListener →Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas
Issue: Whether Texas HB18, a state law regulating social media platforms' content moderation and targeted advertising practices directed at minors, violates the First Amendment and is preempted by Section 230.
This appeal presents a post-Moody test case for state regulation of social media platforms' treatment of minors and targeted advertising practices. The Fifth Circuit's resolution will clarify how Moody's framework for evaluating must-carry and content moderation mandates applies to age-based restrictions and commercial speech regulations, and whether Section 230 preempts state laws targeting platform design features and advertising practices rather than third-party content liability.
View on CourtListener →