IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Issue
In *In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation*, the State Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey argue that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not immunize Meta from state consumer protection claims premised on Meta's own deceptive conduct and product design choices — the central defense Meta is pressing in its pending Motion for Summary Judgment. The question is non-obvious because Section 230(e)(3) expressly preempts inconsistent state laws, and federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have historically construed that immunity broadly against claims that would treat platforms as publishers of third-party content.
What Happened
Filed on April 13, 2026 — two days before oral argument on Meta's Motion for Summary Judgment — this is a Statement of Recent Decision submitted under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2), a procedural mechanism that allows a party to bring a newly issued judicial opinion to the court's attention without extended argument. The filing attaches as Exhibit A the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's April 10, 2026 decision in *Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc.*, No. SJC-13747, which the State AGs characterize as holding that Section 230 does not bar state consumer protection claims against Meta. The notice does not brief the underlying legal arguments; it presents the Massachusetts ruling as directly on-point authority supporting the AGs' opposition to Meta's summary judgment motion. The filing makes no attempt to reconcile the Massachusetts holding with controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, and it does not address whether the Massachusetts consumer protection statute is materially similar to the statutes at issue in this MDL.
Why It Matters
Meta's core defense in this MDL is that Section 230 shields it from state liability for harms caused by its platforms — a defense that, if accepted at summary judgment, could end the case before trial. The State AGs are pointing to a brand-new ruling from Massachusetts's highest court as evidence that courts are increasingly unwilling to let Section 230 block consumer protection claims about how Meta designed and marketed its products, and the eve-of-argument timing is plainly strategic. Whether the filing moves the needle depends entirely on whether the MDL court finds the Massachusetts reasoning persuasive under Ninth Circuit law — a question this notice conspicuously declines to answer. More broadly, the filing adds one more data point to an emerging question in the courts: whether state attorneys general suing in their sovereign enforcement capacity occupy a distinct doctrinal position under Section 230 that is not yet resolved by existing federal precedent.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?