IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Issue
In *In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation*, Meta argues that five categories of anticipated State Attorney General evidence should be excluded at trial — covering omission theories, policy-critique expert opinions, former employee testimony, alleged misrepresentations, and age-verification practices — primarily on the grounds that they are irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, or independently barred by Section 230 immunity and the First Amendment. The non-obvious difficulty is that several of Meta's proposed exclusions depend on legal positions — particularly that age-verification mechanisms are protected editorial decisions under Section 230, and that the AGs' prior disavowal of a duty-to-disclose theory operates as a blanket waiver of all omission evidence — that have no firm appellate support and conflict with established evidentiary principles and federal statutory frameworks.
What Happened
Meta's counsel filed this document on June 9, 2026, as a party-drafted proposed order submitted for court adoption at the pre-trial stage of the California AG bellwether trial in MDL No. 3047 (N.D. Cal.). Although formatted in judicial language, it is an advocacy document — not a court ruling — presenting Meta's preferred resolution of its five pending Motions in Limine. MIL 1 seeks exclusion of all omission evidence based on the AGs' earlier litigation representations that they are not pursuing a standalone duty-to-disclose theory. MIL 2 targets six named expert witnesses whose design-alternative opinions Meta characterizes as irrelevant policy second-guessing independently barred by Section 230 and the First Amendment. MIL 3 seeks categorical exclusion of eight named former employees from testifying about algorithms, engagement features, content moderation, and corporate culture, invoking FRE 402, 403, 701, and 702. MILs 4 and 5 seek exclusion of evidence tied to 26 specific alleged misrepresentations and to age-verification and third-party filter practices, with Meta arguing both categories are immunized by Section 230 or forfeited by the AGs' litigation conduct.
Why It Matters
This filing is worth watching because it maps the outer boundaries of how Meta intends to deploy Section 230, the First Amendment, and evidentiary forfeiture arguments simultaneously to foreclose the State AGs' trial presentation before it begins. The most consequential and legally unsettled move is Meta's effort to extend Section 230 immunity to age-verification mechanisms by characterizing them as publishing decisions — a position that directly conflicts with COPPA's knowledge-based framework and that no circuit court has endorsed. If a trial court adopted that framing, it would generate a significant appellate question about whether Section 230 can insulate platforms from evidentiary scrutiny of their age-detection capabilities in the face of a federal statutory scheme that specifically contemplates that inquiry. The proposed blanket waiver of omission evidence and the categorical exclusion of former employee percipient testimony present additional doctrinal pressure points, since both arguments run against well-established principles that such evidence routinely remains admissible to contextualize affirmative claims and satisfy the personal-knowledge requirements of FRE 701.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?