People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Issue
Whether Section 230 bars the State of California from introducing evidence at trial that second-guesses Meta's internal policies and procedures governing content moderation.
What Happened
Meta filed Motion in Limine No. 2 seeking to preclude the State of California from introducing evidence that critiques or second-guesses Meta's platform policies and procedures, arguing such evidence is both irrelevant and independently barred by Section 230. The motion is set for hearing on June 26, 2026, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with responses due June 17, 2026. The filing reflects Meta's effort to invoke Section 230 as an evidentiary shield at the trial stage — deploying the statute not merely to dismiss claims at the pleading stage but to exclude at trial any evidence that would effectively treat Meta as a publisher or speaker responsible for third-party content moderation decisions.
Why It Matters
This motion represents a notable and relatively rare invocation of Section 230 as a trial-stage evidentiary bar rather than a pleading-stage immunity defense, testing whether §230 can preclude entire categories of evidence concerning platform policy choices — a question with significant implications for how government enforcement actions against platforms can be litigated. The outcome could clarify the extent to which Section 230's publisher immunity principle constrains not just liability theories but the evidentiary record in public-enforcement cases brought by state attorneys general.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?