Meta and Google are Losing in Addiction Suits

Why couldn't Meta use Section 230 to block these lawsuits?

The 9th Circuit ruled Section 230 is a defense to liability, not blanket immunity from being sued, so companies cannot use it to block a case before trial. The lawsuits target addictive product design, not user-posted content, and plaintiffs argued the law doesn't cover how platforms build and operate their products. That made Meta's appeal premature, not wrong on the merits.

Why has Section 230 usually protected platforms until now?

Section 230 was written for defamation cases: courts had to decide if platforms were liable 'publishers' of user content or mere 'distributors.' Since the 1997 Zeran v. AOL ruling, courts read the law broadly, giving platforms near-complete immunity for third-party content, on the reasoning that screening millions of daily posts would be impossible and would chill online speech.

What's the difference between a 'defense' and 'immunity' in court?

Immunity would let a company block a lawsuit outright and appeal that block immediately, before trial. A defense to liability means the company can still argue Section 230 protects it, but only after the case proceeds normally, through trial or final judgment. That distinction is why the 9th Circuit called Meta's appeal too early rather than ruling on Section 230's merits.

Will Meta really end up paying New Mexico's $942 million?

Not yet settled. Meta has vowed to appeal both the $375 million jury verdict and the $567 million public-nuisance ruling, meaning the $942 million total is not final. Meta also warned it could pull Instagram and Facebook from New Mexico rather than comply with the court-ordered platform changes, so the fight is likely to run through appellate courts for years before any payment is locked in.

What legal grounds does Meta have to appeal?

Meta argues Section 230 shields it and that New Mexico's proposed mandates, like mandatory age verification, infringe free speech and parental rights. A law professor noted a court order forcing age authentication has "no Supreme Court textual support," so the outcome on appeal is genuinely uncertain rather than a foregone conclusion for either side.

How big is $942m next to Meta's actual finances?

A former Twitter VP called the New Mexico fine "a drop in the ocean" for Meta. The company posted $61 billion in revenue for just April to June, up 28% year on year, meaning $942 million represents a small fraction of a single quarter's income even before any appeal reduces it.

Could this reshape how Meta designs its platforms nationwide?

New Mexico's attorney general framed the case as an attempt "to try and change the paradigm of how this company does business, but also how Big Tech generally is expected to do business going forward." Beyond money, the judge ordered youth-safety measures, and prosecutors sought algorithm redesigns and a court-supervised monitor, tools courts elsewhere could later replicate.

How are France and Australia's social media bans different?

France's ban, passed 21 July 2026, covers under-15s and rolls out in two stages: new accounts blocked from September 1, existing accounts closed from January 2027, pending a constitutional review. Australia's ban, in force since 10 December 2025, covers under-16s, puts enforcement duty on platforms rather than parents, and carries fines up to 99 million AUD for non-compliance.

How is Australia's ban actually being enforced so far?

Over 310,000 under-16 accounts were deactivated by age filters as of March 2026. But enforcement is leaky: eSafety found seven in 10 children with accounts on restricted platforms when the ban began, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, still had access, prompting Australia to expand age verification to app stores and raise penalties.

Why did French lawmakers who opposed the bill object?

France Unbowed lawmakers argued the ban's constitutionality is unclear, that it would effectively end online anonymity, and that it would be unenforceable. One lawmaker, Arnaud Saint-Martin, said minors also use platforms to access information and empower themselves against racism, sexism and homophobia, calling the bill a "smokescreen law" rather than real mental-health action.

Which other countries have followed Australia's under-16 model?

The pattern is spreading fast: Indonesia banned social media for under-16s in March 2026 (third country globally, terminating 4.7 million accounts), Malaysia followed in June 2026 for platforms over 8 million users, and the UK has proposed a similar under-16 ban to take effect in early 2027, explicitly citing Australia's six months of experience.