Court keeps tech giants liable over young users
Social media giants lost a major bid on Monday to halt one of the largest product liability battles in the country. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Meta, Google, TikTok and Snapchat cannot immediately appeal a lower court’s decision forcing them to face multidistrict litigation. The allegations claim their platforms were specifically engineered to hook young users.
A three-judge panel in San Francisco determined the companies had moved too soon. This type of interlocutory appeal is typically reserved for resolved cases, not ongoing pretrial disputes. The panel rejected the argument that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act functions as absolute immunity allowing for an early challenge.
Related: Nat cat losses may be rising slowly
The judges held that the 1996 law operates as a defense to be raised and won at trial, not a jurisdictional shield that freezes proceedings entirely. This distinction is critical for the case schedule. The underlying litigation, consolidated before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, will continue moving toward trial rather than stalling while appellate courts review the legal theory.
The same panel also declined to pause a separate trial opened this week in California. That action involves attorneys general from 29 states alleging Meta illegally collected children’s data and built platforms to maximize compulsive use. Meta had requested a hold pending its appeal, which the court denied.
Insurance Coverage Faces the Heat
While Section 230 provides the legal framework, the financial exposure is what concerns underwriters. The federal docket now covers more than 3,000 lawsuits filed by parents, school districts, municipalities and state governments. These cases argue that features like infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations were designed to keep children engaged, causing a foreseeable rise in mental health issues.
Related: APAC leads the way in open insurance
Framing the harm as a deliberate design choice rather than an accident has already cost Meta its insurance defense funding in one major venue. A Delaware Superior Court judge sided with insurers including Hartford and Chubb, ruling that commercial general liability policies do not need to fund the defense because a deliberately engineered product is not an “accident” under California law.
The ruling addressed only the duty to defend, not final indemnification, and it remains subject to appeal. However, it aligns with warnings from coverage specialists who noted that standard liability wordings were never written with algorithmic engagement design in mind. Disputes will likely center on whether “expected or intended injury” exclusions apply when pleadings allege deliberate engineering with known harms.
