IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Issue
Whether evidence of content and platform features is subject to exclusion at trial under §230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment in a products liability action brought by a school board against Meta and other social media defendants.
What Happened
This is a temporary sealing motion filed by Plaintiff Breathitt County Board of Education on March 9, 2026, in the MDL proceeding before the Northern District of California, seeking to seal its opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #1, which moves to exclude evidence of content and features allegedly protected by §230 and the First Amendment. The substance of the underlying opposition brief is not included in the filed document, as the motion relates solely to the administrative sealing request. No ruling on the merits of the evidentiary dispute is reflected in this filing.
Why It Matters
Insufficient text to determine the precise arguments or the court's reasoning, but the existence of a motion in limine framing §230 and the First Amendment as evidentiary shields — rather than pleading-stage defenses — signals that defendants are pursuing these protections through trial to limit what a jury may consider regarding platform content and design features.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?