Gonzalez Rogers imposed some limits on the plaintiffs’ claims, finding that “Section 230 insulates the design and deployment of most features alleged to be unfair or unconscionable.” But she declined “to dismiss at this stage theories of liability predicated on a failure-to-warn of known risks of addiction attendant to any platform features or as to platform construction in general.”
The denial of Meta’s motion to dismiss is called an “interlocutory order” because it’s not a final judgment in the case. Interlocutory decisions generally can’t be appealed immediately, but there are exceptions.
Meta claimed that rulings denying Section 230 immunity are “collateral orders” and thus can be appealed before a case has a final judgment. But Meta needed to show, among other things, that the district court’s decision is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”
Judges deny immunity
Meta argued that the 9th Circuit itself “has repeatedly held that Section 230 confers immunity from suit.” The judges’ panel acknowledged that the court has “used the phrase ‘immunity’ somewhat loosely in our section 230 jurisprudence,” but said that word usage is not binding, “because we have never addressed whether the denial of a section 230 defense is a collateral order.”
