Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—9th Cir.: Meta’s appeal in state AGs’ case over harms to children fails, (Aug 12, 2026)

By Carrie DeLeon,carrie.deleon@wolterskluwer.com

Section 230 merely provides a defense, not immunity, thus appellate jurisdiction was lacking.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco) has rejected arguments made by Meta Platforms, Inc., and other social media platforms and denied the companies’ appeal of a district court order refusing to dismiss claims made in thousands of lawsuits filed against Meta and multiple social media companies (People Of The State Of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 24-7032 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2026)).

Meta, TikTok, and others had argued that they were immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a claim that was rejected by the district court—but the Ninth Circuit determined that the firms appealed the decision too early. The court’s order also denies Meta’s motion to stop the trial, which is set to start this week, from going forward.

“Because section 230 merely provides a defense to liability—not immunity from suit—we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s rulings on an interlocutory basis,” Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote for the Ninth Circuit in the ruling.

The lawsuit, which was brought by a coalition of state attorneys general led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D.) and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.) in 2023, alleged that Meta knowingly “deployed harmful features” on its platforms to exploit and addict children and teens for profit. Other states, school districts, and individuals filed similar lawsuits that were eventually consolidated.

The lawsuit alleges that Meta violated federal and state laws, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, California's False Advertising Law, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

In seeking to dismiss some of the claims made in the lawsuit, Meta argued that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects it from being held legally liable for third-party or user content before the case moves forward. The district court largely rejected Meta’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, and earlier this year, a court denied Meta’s attempt to obtain a summary judgment that would have terminated this lawsuit.

Although Meta contends that the district court’s denial of section 230 immunity is immediately appealable as a “collateral order,” the Ninth Circuit said it couldn’t consider Meta’s appeal at this stage in the proceeding.

California AG Bonta hailed the court’s decision in a statement:

“On the eve of trial, Meta has resorted to seeking an emergency stay in the appellate courts. Meta’s latest effort to get out of taking accountability has failed—again,” AG Bonta said. “One of my most important jobs as Attorney General is to protect our children from harm. Meta designed a dangerous product for young users, knew it to be dangerous, and then lied to children, families, and the community about how dangerous it was. We are ready to hold Meta accountable for its role in fueling the mental health crisis of American children and look forward to trial. It seems Meta very much does not.”

The Case is No. 24-7032.

Judge: Nguyen, J.

Attorneys: Jennie Lee Anderson (Andrus Anderson, LLP) for Personal Injury Plaintiffs. Antonio Perez-Marques (Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP) for Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc.

Companies: Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc.

Cases: ConsumerProtection StateUnfairTradePractices Privacy AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews