Plaintiffs, members of the Rohingya ethnic minority in Myanmar, filed a putative class action alleging that Meta Platforms, Inc. designed Facebook to encourage the spread of anti-Rohingya content that incited violence and genocide. The complaint argued that Meta's algorithmic systems, which boosted content based on user engagement and 'social rewards,' exacerbated the spread of harmful posts. Plaintiffs further alleged that Meta failed to provide a Burmese-language interface for reporting content, thereby preventing users from flagging hate speech. Meta removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provided immunity. The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on timeliness grounds, but the Ninth Circuit addressed the Section 230 argument on appeal to determine if it provided an independent basis for dismissal.
The panel applied the three-step test from Barnes v. Yahoo! to determine if Section 230 applied. First, the court confirmed that Meta is a provider of an interactive computer service. Second, the court analyzed whether the plaintiffs' claims sought to treat Meta as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. The court held that claims alleging defects in Facebook's design, specifically its algorithmic recommendation system that boosted toxic content based on engagement, necessarily treated Meta as a publisher. The court reasoned that matching users with content and recommending posts is publishing conduct under existing Ninth Circuit precedent, distinguishing this case from product liability claims involving direct user interaction with platform features that do not rely on third-party content. Third, the court found that Meta did not make a 'material contribution' to the content. The court explained that providing neutral tools for users to post content, even when those tools include algorithms that amplify engagement, does not constitute material contribution. The court noted that the algorithm did not specifically tailor content to encourage violence but rather responded to general user engagement patterns. Additionally, the court addressed the choice-of-law argument, concluding that even if California's choice-of-law rules pointed to Myanmar law, the Supremacy Clause prevents state rules from overriding federal law. The court found that Myanmar's interest in protecting its citizens was not sufficiently incorporated into positive law to create a conflict that would displace Section 230.
The decision reinforces the broad scope of Section 230 immunity in the Ninth Circuit, specifically regarding algorithmic content recommendation. It establishes that plaintiffs cannot circumvent immunity by framing algorithmic design as a product liability defect if the core of the claim relies on the platform's role in publishing or recommending third-party speech. The ruling also clarifies that federal immunity under Section 230 preempts state choice-of-law analyses that might otherwise apply foreign laws. The case is affirmed, meaning the plaintiffs' claims against Meta are dismissed and cannot proceed in federal court.