People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Issue
Whether §230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act bars state Attorneys General's unfairness and deception claims under state consumer protection laws based on Meta's alleged addictive platform design features and misrepresentations about platform safety directed at minors.
What Happened
Eighteen state Attorneys General filed an opposition to Meta's motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment in the MDL proceeding concerning social media adolescent addiction. The AGs argued that §230 does not bar their unfairness claims because those claims target Meta's own product design choices rather than third-party content, relying on the Ninth Circuit's framework in *Calise v. Meta Platforms* and *Doe v. Internet Brands*. The AGs also cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the commerce-related elements of their state consumer protection claims, contending that Meta's statements constitute deceptive commercial speech unprotected by the First Amendment and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine does not shield Meta's alleged misrepresentations. On the COPPA claim, the AGs argued Meta had actual knowledge of users under thirteen and that disgorgement is available as a remedy under COPPA's remedial provision.
Why It Matters
This filing advances the critical and unsettled question of whether §230 immunizes a platform's affirmative design decisions—such as algorithmic features allegedly engineered to maximize adolescent engagement—when challenged by state enforcement authorities rather than private plaintiffs, potentially establishing that state AG consumer protection actions targeting platform architecture fall outside §230's immunity.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?