Meta Platforms is appealing decisions that allow state attorneys general, local school districts and towns to proceed with claims centered on teen safety.
The company indicated in its notice of appeal that it will argue it's immune from suit under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects web services from liability over users' posts. The company hasn't yet filed a substantive brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The notice of appeal, filed Thursday, relates to two rulings issued last month by U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.
One of the decisions, issued by Rogers on October 15, let state attorneys general proceed with allegations that Meta violated various state consumer protection laws by touting its services as safe for teens. The other ruling, handed down on October 24, allowed school districts and local governments to proceed with claims that Meta (and other social platforms) harmed students and disrupted schools.
advertisement
advertisement
In both cases, the complaints center on allegations that the social platforms design their services to be addictive, and then serve minors with potentially harmful material -- such as “challenges” that allegedly encourage people to attempt dangerous activity, or filters that allegedly promoted unrealistic beauty standards.
Teens and parents are pursuing similar allegations against social platforms in a separate class-action complaint.
Meta has argued that all claims should be dismissed for numerous reasons, including that it's immune from suit under Section 230.
Rogers said in her rulings that Section 230 applied to some of the claims in the lawsuits, but not all. For instance, she said Section 230 protected tech platforms from allegations that their algorithmic recommendations promoted addictive behavior. But she also said Section 230 wouldn't preclude claims that the platforms failed to label appearance-altering filters that people used to enhance their photos.