(a)(1) A contract or proposed contract for the sale or lease of consumer goods or services may not include a provision waiving the consumer’s right to make any statement regarding the seller or lessor or its employees or agents, or concerning the goods or services.

(a)(2) It shall be unlawful to threaten or to seek to enforce a provision made unlawful under this section, or to otherwise penalize a consumer for making any statement protected under this section.

These laws seek to foster consumer reviews by stopping businesses from contractually restricting such reviews. The same principle animates the Consumer Review Fairness Act.

While pro-consumer review laws are good policy, California dubiously attached a private right of action to 1670.8. In its wake, a small group of lawyers have initiated a spate of bogus lawsuits. The lawyers overread businesses’ TOSes, twisting ordinary TOS provisions into putative restrictions on consumer reviews. Enforcement then becomes basically point-and-click. The lawyers search for the targeted TOS provision and then sue the associated business without showing any harm to any consumer. At that point, it becomes a numbers game: file enough lawsuits to cash in from quick but undeserved settlements.

The California appeals court ruling rejects this litigation scheme. The court says 1670.8’s private right of action only applies to (a)(2), not (a)(1). This distinction requires the lawyers to have actual gagged consumers to proceed. Virtual drive-by litigation based solely on TOS language, without more, won’t cut it.

The panel reaches this conclkusion because only (a)(2) contains the “it shall be unlawful” grammar that seemingly triggers penalties:

The differences between the two subdivisions permit a reasonable inference that the Legislature intended for subdivision (a)(1) to operate as a shield and for subdivision (a)(2) to provide the consumer with a sword when a seller threatens or takes action to enforce a waiver to stifle consumer speech.

On this point, the court sides with the Shofet case and ignores the Anderson case that reached the opposite conclusion.

The “shield” reference is confusing. A shield for whom, and against what? Later, the court says that TOS provisions that violate (a)(1) are unenforceable. However, that seems to render (a)(1) superfluous. If the legislature attaches a penalty to enforcing the TOS provision, doesn’t that penalty also simultaneously render the TOS provision unenforceable, at least implicitly?

This opinion isn’t precedential, so it is definitely not the final word on the matter. However, it’s also clear that this litigation genre is doomed, one way or another. The sooner, the better.

Even if (a)(1) doesn’t have a private right of action, businesses should still scrub their TOSes for any provisions that might be construed as restrictions on consumer reviews. Among other problems, enforcing those provisions could still trigger the private right of action.

Selected Blog Posts Regarding 1670.8

• Catching Up on the Bogus “Yelp Law” Litigation Campaign–Tao v. Uniqlo
• Amazon Must Defend “Yelp Law” Claim–Ramos v. Amazon
• Courts Are Rejecting Attempts to Weaponize Laws That Protect Consumer Reviews
• Businesses Cannot Contractually Ban “Abusive” Consumer Reviews
• California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews (Forbes Cross-Post)

The post Appeals Court Shuts Down Bogus Private Enforcements of the ‘Yelp Law’–Moss v. GoDaddy appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact checkers or went against our Community Guidelines. Do you want to @mention this account?

There was a more prominent “cancel” button than the option to proceed, implicitly nudging users to cancel. F4F claims that none of its posts were false and Instagram didn’t rely on fact-checkers before displaying the interstitial warning.

The filings don’t appear to show the interstitial warning (why not?), but I found this example online:

F4F filed in Virginia state court. Instagram removed to federal court and then sought to transfer venue to California per its TOS. The federal district judge agrees.

F4F argued that Instagram’s TOS formation process was a browsewrap. I couldn’t find screenshots in the filings (why not?), but the court credits[FN] Instagram’s declaration that the signup process said “by tapping ‘Sign Up’ you agree to our Terms, Data Policy, and Cookies Policy.” The court says this is a “hybrid clickwrap,” not a “browsewrap.” I say it’s neither; it’s a standard sign-in-wrap, and we don’t have enough information to know if it’s properly formed without seeing screenshots.

[FN: The court says it credits Instagram’s declaration on a motion to transfer “given the declarant’s personal knowledge of the information described therein and given that Feds for Freedom’s allegations are consistent with the declaration.”]

F4F said it didn’t read the terms. (Indeed, literacy appears to be a major challenge in the anti-vax community). Quoting Dhruva, the court replies that “when a website provides clear and reasonably conspicuous notice that there are contract terms available by scrolling down or clicking a hyperlink, the user is on reasonable notice of those terms even if she never reads them.” As a result, F4F bears the consequences of its decision not to read the TOS. That’s enough to ship the case to California.

The court’s TOS formation ruling isn’t surprising, but the real action in this case will start when the court considers the legal implications of the interstitial warning. I have raised concerns before about the legal risks of fact-checking and other explanations. Unsurprisingly, the affected accounts really don’t appreciate being called out.

Case Citation: Feds for Freedom v. Meta Platforms, Inc. 2026 WL 2058962 (W.D. Va. July 16, 2026)

The post Court Upholds Instagram’s TOS–Feds for Freedom v. Meta appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Coomer v. Lindell, 2026 WL 817370 (D. Colo. March 25, 2026)

Related post. This is more fallout from the efforts to deny the 2020 presidential election results. MyPillows huckster Lindell publicly trashed Dominion Voting and and its president, Coomer. A jury held Lindell and Frankspeech liable for defamation and more. The defendants unsuccessfully tried to overturn the jury verdict post-trial.

Frankspeech invoked Section 230 for its liability for Lindell’s speech. The court disagrees:

Mr. Lindell founded Frankspeech. He regularly acted as its corporate representative, including at trial. He hosted his own show on Frankspeech, broadcasted it through Frankspeech, and used the Frankspeech platform to make and publish statements about Dr. Coomer. There is no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Lindell exercised any meaningful degree of control over the Frankspeech entity. By all accounts, Frankspeech was Mr. Lindell’s corporate alter ego in this context….for § 230 purposes, Frankspeech’s defamatory statements through its agent would plainly qualify as participation in the development of those statements.

Frankspeech also claimed Section 230 for Clement’s remarks at a conference. The court responds: “Frankspeech—through Mr. Lindell and others—sponsored, promoted, and broadcasted the event….a reasonable jury could conclude that Frankspeech’s conduct (including its conduct through Mr. Lindell) created actual or apparent authority for Mr. Clements and other presenters at the Cyber Symposium to act as agents of Frankspeech.”

Murphy v. LinkedIn Corp., 2026 WL 881710 (N.D. Cal. March 30, 2026)

Fraudsters approached Murphy via LinkedIn direct messages. The conversation switched over to WhatsApp, where the fraudsters effectuated their fraud. Murphy’s lawsuit against LinkedIn fails due to Section 230:

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, gross negligence, and product liability are premised on a purported duty to “monitor” users, “restrict the accounts of fraudulent actors,” and to suppress “fraudulent activities” by users of LinkedIn’s platform. These claims “necessarily implicate” LinkedIn’s role as a publisher of third-party content because “discharging the alleged duty would require [LinkedIn] to monitor third-party content and prevent” communications between fraudsters and legitimate LinkedIn users. Nor can Plaintiffs sue LinkedIn for breaching a “duty to warn.” LinkedIn’s “role as a publisher of third-party content does not give it a duty to warn users of ‘a general possibility of harm’ resulting from” using LinkedIn’s services.

The plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried the defective design workaround:

Plaintiffs argue that their claims are not based on LinkedIn’s role as publisher, but rather its role “as a product manufacturer and developer of defective algorithms” that facilitated communications between fraudsters and Plaintiffs. But the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly upheld dismissal of negligence and product liability claims framed in the same way. [cites to Doe v. Grindr and Dyroff]

A Roommates.com workaround didn’t work either:

Plaintiffs’ claims are premised on LinkedIn’s neutral tools for connecting users, not on content that LinkedIn created or required users to provide as a condition of using its services. Indeed, LinkedIn expressly informs users that they “have choices about the information” on their profiles, and that users “don’t have to post or upload personal data” that may make them targets of fraud.

To put a finer point on it, if the plaintiffs are complaining about LinkedIn direct messages, then those messages may be covered by the ECPA just like email, and LinkedIn may have had limited legal rights to monitor the conversations at all.

Finally, the plaintiffs tried a TOS-based workaround, poured into consumer protection laws. The court acknowledges that some breach of contract claims may not be preempted by Section 230, but

These claims are premised on the same duties discussed above – duties to monitor, to design products in a different manner, and to warn – that fundamentally seek to hold LinkedIn liable for content created by the fraudsters. Styling these claims as different legal theories does not remove them from Section 230’s scope….

Plaintiffs seek to hold LinkedIn liable solely based on its general monitoring policy and aspirations to remove fraudulent users from its platform. Moreover, LinkedIn expressly disclaims liability by notifying users that they “may encounter content or information that might be inaccurate, incomplete, delayed, misleading, illegal, offensive, or otherwise harmful,” and that LinkedIn “generally does not review content provided by [its] Members or others.”

McNeal v. Calvin, 2026 WL 879228 (E.D. Mo. March 31, 2026)

This case relates to the TV show Love & Marriage: Huntsville, shown on OWN (Oprah’s channel). The plaintiff, a lawyer (naturally), is one of the women featured in the show. She is upset about online comments about the show and sued many defendants pro se. The court says “Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act bars Plaintiff’s claims against YouTube, Google, and Tik Tok.” In particular, “The content uploaded by users cannot be attributed to internet service providers based on the theory that users are “agents” of the websites they use.”

Shiva Ayyadurai v. U.S., 2026 WL 879409 (D.C.D.C. March 31, 2026). My prior blog post about a different litigation of his.

This is a jawboning case:

Ayyadurai’s 75-page Complaint alleges that various Massachusetts state officials—none of whom are named as Defendants in this case—federal officials at the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), and other government officials unknown to him have coordinated with private companies to regulate and censor his speech by “deplatforming” or “shadowbanning” him—that is, suspending his social media accounts or limiting the reach of his posts. Ayyadurai alleges that the Defendants took these actions in retaliation for posts in which he “articulat[ed] a government employee’s role in destroying the digital ballot images used to tabulate votes” in a prior election.

With respect to the liability of the social media defendants who allegedly got jawboned, the court accepts the 230(c)(2)(A) defense:

Ayyadurai’s Complaint fails to state a claim against the Social Media Defendants based on their content-moderation decisions because he does not plausibly allege that any of those decisions were made in the absence of “good faith” or that they were made for a purpose other than removing content that they “consider[ ] to be … objectionable.”…

conclusory allegations of bad faith are insufficient to state a claim against a platform based on activity within the reach of Section 230(c)(2).

At the same time, the court struggled with applying to Section 230(c)(1) to the removal decisions. Incredibly, it says:

only a few of the decisions restating this broad dictum [from Zeran] have grappled with its implications when the challenged conduct is a platform’s decision to remove objectionable content—such as a plaintiff’s own posts—rather than a decision to leave other objectionable content in place. Extending immunity under Section 230(c)(1) to cover direct challenges to the removal of user content is an uneasy fit with the language of the provision, which says only that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” A broad reading of Section 230(c)(1) that immunizes all content-removal decisions also risks “swallo[wing] the more specific immunity in (c)(2),” which applies only to content-moderation decisions that are made in “good faith.”

Not this shit again. I have repeatedly explained how Section 230(c)(2) can apply to first-party filtering decisions, which leaves room for Section 230(c)(1) to protect against liability for third-party content. There are DOZENS of cases applying Section 230(c)(1) to removal decisions, so for the court to think that it’s spotted something that all of those other courts have missed is laughable…and completely gratuitous…and ultimately inconsequential given that the court still tosses the case.

The court tries to justify its reluctance on Section 230(c)(1):

There is little reason to strain the reach of the immunity in Section 230(c)(1) when, as in this case, the immunity in Section 230(c)(2) leads to the same result.

NOOOO. There are several excellent reasons to apply both 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2):

(1) 230(c)(1) doesn’t have a good faith prerequisite, which has mucked up 230(c)(2) jurisprudence and made 12(b)(6) dismissals much more difficult to obtain, jacking up the litigation costs for both sides and giving false hope to bogus claims. Indeed, because the court dismissed this case without prejudice, I’m sure an amended complaint will try again to manufacture bad faith sufficient to kick the case into very expensive discovery;

(2) removal and leave-up decisions are two sides of the same decision, i.e., every editorial decision about an item of third-party content is either a leave-up or removal decision, so they cannot be separated; and

(3) the statute and 25+ years of caselaw have established the principle that 230(c)(1) applies to removal decisions.

Sigh. In the end, this case ends up the same as all of the other content removal and account termination cases–dismissed.

Gaughan v. Barounis, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 17243 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. December 18, 2025) 

The Complaint alleges that the impersonating profile and pictures of plaintiff were posted by defendants Barounis and Viera. Plaintiff’s contention that the XVideo defendants are liable for refusing or failing to remove offending material prepared by a third party, or that they may be held responsible for allegedly defamatory postings made by third parties does not state a viable basis for liability. Nowhere in the Complaint does plaintiff allege that the XVideo defendants posted or created the impersonating profile themselves, altered or edited its contents, or encouraged, required, or otherwise induced defendants Barounis and/or Viera, or any other user, to create the profile or upload unlawful content. To the contrary, plaintiff even alleges in her Complaint that Barounis and Viera allegedly making this impersonating profile goes against XVideo.com’s Terms and Agreements.

The Court also finds plaintiff’s argument that the XVideo defendants should be responsible for her alleged stolen identity, and that Section 230 does not apply in cases, unavailing.

It has also been held that “Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Right Law sounds in privacy, not intellectual property, and thus does not fall within the intellectual property exceptions in Section 230.”

Equally, plaintiff’s contention that this immunity is lost because the XVideo defendants allowed the dissemination of plaintiff’s personal information and allowed discriminatory content (age, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.) is unsuccessful.

Arana v. Molta, 2026 WL 1166348 (D. Mass. March 24, 2026)

Mr. Molta drafted the description of, and provided the photos for, the Dennis Property posted to WNAV’s website. WNAV did not review, revise, edit, or provide feedback on the Dennis Property listing that the Moltas posted to the WNAV website. WNAV is thus immune from liability for any of the statements or representations made by the Moltas in the Dennis Property listing.

Greer v. Moon, 2026 WL 1170015 (D. Utah. Feb. 11, 2026)

Mr. Greer’s only claims against Defendants are for contributory copyright infringement under federal law. Because those claims clearly “pertain[ ] to intellectual property,” they cannot be barred by section 230. Defendants’ argument concerning section 230 immunity fails.

Tufano v. Google LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100789 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2026)

“Plaintiff premises his claims on Google allegedly “filter[ing] out all negative reviews” of Dr. Taban, including Plaintiff’s negative review, which Google allegedly removed.” The court dismisses per Section 230: “First, Google’s review service is an interactive computer service. Second, Google publishes the reviews on which Plaintiff bases his claims. Third, third parties, and not Google itself, provide the reviews published by Google.” The plaintiff said Google didn’t act in good faith, but Google relied on 230(c)(1) where good faith is irrelevant, and the plaintiff didn’t provide any evidence of bad faith.

Starship LLC v. Shein Distribution Co., 2026 WL 1455009 (C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026)

This is a fast fashion enforcement lawsuit that includes both copyright and trademark claims. The direct infringement claims largely fail because Shein operates as a marketplace for online vendors. The contributory infringement claims failed because the plaintiff wanted a staydown in response to takedown notices. The vicarious infringement claims also fail.

Shein defended against the unfair competition claim based on Section 230. The court says:

Plaintiff characterizes Shein as an information content provider because it “regularly markets and sells goods” and “is involved in almost all aspects of the marketplace’s distribution chain.” These conclusory assertions do not plausibly allege that Defendants are content providers. Plaintiff provides no factual basis to infer that Defendants materially contributed to the alleged infringement.

King v. Jilin Province Detiannuo Safety Tech. Co. Ltd., 2026 Fla. Cir. LEXIS 295 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 17, 2026)

Plaintiff does not allege that eBay participated in the creation or development of Seller’s listing or allege that eBay played some role in handling or transmitting the airbag components. Plaintiff only alleges that eBay should have removed Seller’s listing and/or issued some censure to Seller for its alleged noncompliant listing….

The only way eBay allegedly could have prevented the harm was by reviewing the third-party listing, determining whether it complied with internal policies, and removing it. That conduct, i.e., deciding whether to publish or remove third-party content, is a paradigmatic editorial function protected by the CDA.

In re Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, 2026 WL 1552391 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2026)

The Court finds Defendants’ argument that Section 230 provides immunity from suit unavailing. Defendants point to the clause in Section 230 that states that “no cause of action may be brought” that is contrary to the statute. 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3). But the Tenth Circuit has held that Section 230 “provides immunity only from liability, not suit.” And the Ninth Circuit case Defendants themselves cite clearly states that Section 230 is designed “to protect websites against the evil of liability for failure to remove offensive content”; that case does not mention protection from suit. Thus, the Court concludes that Section 230 does not protect Defendants from suit.

Accardi v. CSC Holdings, LLC, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 83186 (N.Y. Supreme Ct. November 26, 2024)

The plaintiffs claim that defendants failing to follow their terms of service makes them liable to the plaintiffs, effectively negating the immunity provided by the Communications Decency Act. After a review of the papers submitted by the defendants and the plaintiffs, the Court finds that the immunity provided by Section 230 does apply to the defendants in this action and the plaintiffs have not proffered any compelling argument or evidence to negate this immunity. As such, the defendants motion to dismiss the third cause of action pertaining to the failure to remove posts on social media is granted.

Life Mastery Network LLC v. Haygarth, 2026 WL 1622887 (D. Haw. May 22, 2026)

Paula indisputably enjoys immunity under the CDA for reposting content. Many courts have included private individuals within the scope of a “user.” Thus, (1) Paula is a “user of an interactive computer service”; (2) the subreddit link is “based on information provided by another information content provider”; and (3) Plaintiffs’ claim would treat Paula “as the publisher or speaker of that information.” As such, and as Plaintiffs have conceded at the Hearing, Paula is immune from lawsuit for what she reposted from Reddit.

But because the CDA does not immunize someone who posts original content, it makes sense that adding comments to something that is re-posted would not trigger CDA immunity. While these cited cases are not directly on point, the Court concludes that Paula’s comments regarding what she reposted are not subject to CDA immunity.

Glazer v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 1:25-cv-01849-GLR (D. Md. June 12, 2026)

The Court agrees with Meta that Section 230 bars Plaintiffs’ claims….All three elements are satisfied here: Meta is an interactive services provider; Plaintiffs’ claims treat Meta as the publisher or speaker of information under Section 230 because they “seek ‘to hold [Meta] liable for . . . deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content’ provided by third parties”; and the content at issue here is that of third parties, and Plaintiffs “seek[] to hold Meta liable, not for providing that content, but for allowing third parties to do so.”

Related ruling.

Sidoli v. YouTube LLC. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210953 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025)

Plaintiff also seeks to treat YouTube as a publisher because she alleges that YouTube wrongfully demonetized, restricted, and removed her videos. Such conduct falls within a publisher’s traditional functions….

YouTube cited authority that which stand for the proposition that Section 230 immunizes internet service providers from suit for termination of a plaintiff’s entire channel as well as the content that the plaintiff posts on that channel. Such authority is persuasive. Thus, any claim Plaintiff brings which seeks to challenge YouTube’s decision to remove Plaintiff’s YouTube channel is also barred by Section 230.

Also, “Plaintiff’s constitutional claims cannot proceed as YouTube is a private forum, not a state actor.”

See also Sidoli v. YouTube LLC, 2026 WL 1480407 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2026), upholding YouTube’s TOS and forum selection clause: “Defendants provide evidence, which Plaintiff does not dispute, showing that she agreed to abide by the terms of service by clicking the “Create Channel” button when she started her YouTube page on June 21, 2021.”

Kennedy v. Vickery, 2025 Me. Super. LEXIS 108 (Me. Superior Ct. Sept. 10, 2025)

RFK Jr. lost a defamation lawsuit. As for Section 230:

Defendant posted on X, without comment, a link to an article, authored by thegrio.com, titled “Anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is harming black people—and his family legacy—with his vaccine misinformation campaign.”…

Under the Communications Decency Act, internet service users are not liable for repeating, without embellishment, third party content….

Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint supports Defendant’s assertion that he posted the third-party content without embellishment. Plaintiff denies Defendant posted the link without embellishment, but cites no admissible record evidence to support the denial. Thus, under the Communications Decency Act, Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for this post.

Awoye v. Jones, 2026 WL 1847088 (D.N.J. June 26, 2026)

In Instagram posts, Jones claims that Awoye scammed her. Awoye sued her and brought Meta along for the ride, claiming it had violated his publicity rights. There isn’t any publicity rights violation here:

The core of Plaintiff’s allegations is that Jones spread allegedly false information about Plaintiff on Instagram. Jones was not selling a product or otherwise soliciting money from her followers. As such, neither was Instagram. Jones’ posts were the “dissemination of news or information” and not made for a commercial purpose.”

Norton v. Meta Platform, Inc., 2026 WL 1963120 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2026)

In posts on Facebook, several third parties accused Norton of criminal activity and shared intimate images of him….

“Meta is an interactive computer service provider.” Second, Norton alleges that third parties, not Meta, created the Facebook posts at issue; the third parties, not Meta, are the “information content provider[s].” Third, each of Norton’s claims seek to treat Meta as a “publisher” of third-party content. “A claim that obliges the defendant to monitor thirdparty content to avoid liability … treats the defendant as a publisher.”

Norton argued “but the algorithms.” Citing Ligon, the court says the algorithms matter only if the algorithm creates content. Citing Roommates.com, the court adds: “Norton doesn’t allege that Meta required its third-party users to create or post any of the content at issue.”

Moore v. LogSat Software LLC, 2022 WL 23074273 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2022)

John Moore has never been accused of, arrested for, or convicted of any sex-related offense; yet, his name, picture, address, and other identifying information appear on LogSat Software LLC’s app, called “Sex Offenders Search”….

Mr. Moore was convicted in Indiana of voluntary manslaughter. Thus, he was required to register on a violent crime registry in Indiana. The violent offender and sex offender registries are the same in Indiana—in other words there are not two separate lists. Mr. Moore testified that he believed that there was no national violent offender registry, just a national sex offender registry and that he is on that because the Indiana Registry is reported to the National registry….

the alleged defamatory statement at issue is that Mr. Moore’s name, picture, address, and other identifying information appear on app called “Sex Offenders Search,” because he is not a sex offender and has never been accused of, arrested for, or convicted of any sex-related crimes. Mr. Moore does not allege that he was wrongfully included in the data set that LogSat purchased from FWD, or, for that matter, that he was wrongfully included on Indiana or the National registries.

The post Large Roundup of Section 230 Rulings appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

The first two rulings came in March. In the Bouck case, the court rejected Facebook’s Section 230 defense because Facebook’s generative AI allegedly contributed to the ad copy. In the Suddeth case, the court accepted Facebook’s Section 230 defense because the plaintiffs focused on algorithmic amplification.

Although the Bouck case initially overcame Section 230, in an under-the-radar ruling this week, the court nevertheless dismissed it as preempted by federal securities law. So the Bouck plaintiffs got a first-hand taste of the infamous Ninth Circuit switcheroo, which occurs when the plaintiffs get false hope that they might actually win because they got around Section 230, only to slam into other brick walls in their prima facie case.

The March Bouck Ruling

Section 230

Meta’s Section 230 defense turns on whether it was a co-creator of the ads sufficient to become an “information content provider.” The court says “What it means to “create” or “develop” content on the internet is not self-evident.” The court says there’s a fact dispute over whether Facebook’s contributions were material:

The alleged illegality stems from the advertisements’ content—i.e., the false statements made to Facebook and Instagram users that induced them to click on the ads. Plaintiffs have averred that Meta participated in the construction of the ads by literally generating, using artificial intelligence, the images and text in the advertisements. That degree of participation is not protected by section 230…. [cite to Forrest v. Meta]

The district court in Forrest accepted that optimizing the appearance of an ad to drive engagement was enough of a contribution to the ads’ illegality to preclude section 230 immunity. Here, in addition to averring facts which, if proven, would establish that Meta altered the ads’ appearance to maximize impressions, Plaintiffs have averred that Meta’s tools allowed the scammers to produce “AI-generated text and images” for use in the ads through its Advantage+ Creative tool.

The court says Carafano doesn’t help Facebook because:

Plaintiffs have averred that Meta created the offending information by generating some of the false statements that tricked them into the investment scheme….

Plaintiffs aver that the scammers used Meta’s Advantage+ Creative tool which, as explained, uses artificial intelligence to enhance whatever message the user inputs. If a user, for example, tells the tool that he is interested in an ad promising astronomical weekly investment returns, Advantage+ Creative will spin up a slew of ads that include the provided language and other language, images, and videos it decides will be effective in promoting the user’s chosen message….

Without question, Advantage+ Creative and the other tools in Meta’s advertising suite would not have come up with that language without the inspiration from the scammers, but that language is still the creation of Meta.

One way of reading this decision is that Section 230 has limited applicability to Generative AI outputs. If the model outputs something new (as opposed to verbatim replicating material in its index or provided by the user), then the newly created material isn’t covered by Section 230.

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

The court says Facebook’s ad review process should have detected that the ad looked scammy (see an example on the right): “Even a cursory look would warrant suspicion that the ad is fraudulent. Meta cannot, with a straight face, claim otherwise.” Facebook responded that the ad review was automated (i.e., no human performed the “cursory look” that the judge was contemplating), a response the judge calls “confounding” because “It was Meta’s decision to use technological review tools to screen ads, and it does not now get to claim it had no idea what was going on because it tasked some software program with doing the first pass.”

The judge is dabbling with some heady topics here in an unsatisfying and superficial way. At core, the judge–whether he intended to or not–is addressing the epistemological question of when a machine “knows” something. This is a crucial topic for the digital age, and it deserves more in-depth and thoughtful treatment than the judge provides here. Alternatively, the judge is accepting an argument that it’s “willful blindness” to turn over ad review to the machines. But nowadays machines do a lot of scanning and screening without humans in the loop, and it deserves some careful and thoughtful judicial review to determine if such delegation deserves to be condemned with a “willful blindness” style punishment. The judge didn’t do that either.

Contract Breach

The plaintiffs tried the oh-so-tired hack of claiming that TOS content policy restrictions should be treated as affirmative representations that the policies won’t be violated. Not this again. Sigh. The judge doesn’t take the bait (cite to Lloyd v. Facebook):

The provision of the ToS on which Plaintiffs rely does not expressly or impliedly impose a binding contractual obligation on Meta to do anything. It is much more naturally read as a creating a duty of its users not to pollute Meta’s platforms with scam investment ads….

To the extent the ToS even mentions Meta doing something to prevent fraud, it speaks only in aspirational terms…Meta, however, never promises to take concrete steps to effectuate that aspiration.

Negligence

“Plaintiffs have averred that Meta did more than just sit idle as fraudsters roamed freely on their platforms. Therefore, no “special relationship” need be pleaded for the case to move forward.”

Unruh Act

“Plaintiffs here aver that they were targeted because of their race or national origin, not that they were excluded from anything. Whatever moral condemnation that merits, it is not a violation of the Unruh Act.”

The court distinguishes Liapes because, in that case, the plaintiff complained she didn’t receive ads based on her protected classifications. Here, the plaintiffs got the ads: “Far from encountering an exclusionary practice, they encountered an inclusionary one—it is just that they wish they were not included.” The court rejects the plaintiffs’ attempt “to spin Liapes into a general prohibition on targeting based on protected characteristics.”

Case Citation: Bouck v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 810036 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2026)

The March Suddeth Ruling

Because of its implications for Generative AI, the Bouck case has garnered some coverage. That coverage overshadowed a companion case, the Suddeth decision, issued by the same judge, on the same day, involving the same basic claim (Chinese stock pumping-and-dumping). Unlike the Bouck case, the judge dismissed the Suddeth case.

In Bouck, the plaintiffs claimed that Facebook helped the advertiser build and polish up the ads using Generative AI. In Suddeth, the plaintiffs claimed Facebook algorithmically amplified the ads. The court has little difficulty concluding that algorithmic amplification is governed by Section 230, citing Dyroff and Doe v. Grindr:

Their theory of algorithmic amplification is nothing more than an averment of facilitation. The core illegality—the choice to use Plaintiffs’ likeness and falsely represent that they endorsed certain investments—was exclusively undertaken by the scammers. Meta provided those scammers tools to disseminate that fraud that may well have played a role in the success of the ploy. However, as in both Dyroff and Grindr, Meta’s tools were content neutral on their own—it was the scammers who chose to manipulate those tools for illicit ends.

The judge distinguishes his own simultaneous ruling in Bouck:

[in Bouck,] the plaintiffs averred that Meta contributed materially to the development of the ads by offering generative-AI tools that developed the ultimate content of the fraudulent ads. Meta’s role in that scheme, therefore, allegedly went beyond offering neutral tools that promoted content developed exclusively by the scammers—Meta, at least according to the complaint, was a genuine co-conspirator in the creation of the offending content. Plaintiffs have failed to aver a similar level of complicity here.

The court summarizes: “Section 230 thus bars any claim which, at bottom, seeks to hold Meta liable for the damage done by the content of the fraudulent ads.”

Case Citation: Suddeth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 810252 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2026)

The June Bouck Ruling

We’re back to the classic Ninth Circuit switcheroo: the arguments that the plaintiffs used to get around Section 230 ensure the failure of the prima facie case. Here, the plaintiffs alleged state law claims to redress what is fundamentally a federal securities law claim. The court summarizes:

Meta…argues that the theory which helped Plaintiffs defeat the first motion to dismiss compels granting the second. If it is true that Meta contributed to the creation of the fraudulent ads, then this suit is necessarily based on the falsity of Meta’s statements. A suit in which a plaintiff claims the defendant made false statements which led the plaintiff to purchase securities when he otherwise would not have is quintessentially one sounding in the securities laws, even if the right of action comes from state law. SLUSA prevents precisely that type of suit from being maintained in any court, state or federal….

At bottom, Plaintiffs are trying to have it both ways. They assert Meta’s misrepresentations aided and abetted the core fraud by pushing them into scam investment groups while simultaneously maintaining that those misrepresentations were not material to their decision to purchase CLEU stock. Both cannot be true—either the misrepresentations mattered (in which case SLUSA applies) or they did not (in which case their claims fail on the merits).

This denouement will surely attract less attention than the March ruling.

The plaintiff could in theory overcome this ruling by bringing a federal securities act claim. However, I suspect the plaintiffs won’t due to the significant pleading challenges. Plus, it will be difficult or impossible to put Facebook on the hook for those claims.

Case Citation: Bouck v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2026 WL 1697630 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2026)

BONUS: Daigneau v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Irving v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 2076112 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2026):

In two related cases, plaintiffs allege that they fell for “pump-and-dump” investment schemes, advertised on Facebook and Instagram and carried out in WhatsApp groups, where criminal networks operating out of China pressured them to purchase “penny stocks”—for Daigneau, Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“OST”) and for Irving, Jayud Global Logistics Ltd. (“JYD”)—while the scams’ orchestrators sold off their own shares. The plaintiffs all allege that with its advertising tools used to develop and target the fraudulent advertisements, Meta not only enabled and facilitated but also materially contributed to the scheme and is liable for the financial loss they suffered. This same scenario was alleged in Bouck et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (25-cv-5194-RS), a case recently dismissed by Hon. Richard Seeborg. Because plaintiffs seek to hold Meta liable for its role creating, optimizing, and targeting the scam advertisements “in connection with” plaintiffs’ purchase of securities, I agree with Judge Seeborg that their claims are barred under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998

The post Section 230 Doesn’t Apply to Generative AI Enhancements to Ad Copy (But the Plaintiffs Lose Anyway)–Bouck and Suddeth v. Meta appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

On March 9, 2026, Judge Chesney granted a preliminary injunction in the case of Amazon v. Perplexity, concluding Amazon was likely to succeed on its CFAA and California Penal Code section 502 theories.

If you’re familiar with the CFAA, the outcome of the preliminary injunction opinion was what you might expect.

But it is underwhelming in some new and interesting ways. It is, in my opinion, a shockingly poor effort to grapple with CFAA applicability to agentic AI technology after Van Buren.

If you’re unfamiliar, agentic AI is simply the name for AI that actually does work for you instead of answering questions. An agent can take a loose goal, break it into steps, use tools, gather information, make decisions, and come back with the task done. That makes it useful for the work people hate but still need judgment to finish, such as research, product comparisons, customer support, and multi-step coordination.

One valuable use case for agentic AI is shopping. Not only can Agentic AI tell you what the highest rated toaster on Amazon is for under $100, it can actually buy it for you.

You can tell agentic AI:

Buy a toaster on Amazon for under $100. Prioritize name brands, Amazon Prime shipping, and wide slots for bagels. Do not buy based solely on Amazon rating. Consider only models with at least 1,000 reviews, a rating of 4.7 or higher, and no obvious fake-review pattern. Cross-check at least two independent review sources or testing sites for confirmation that the quality is among the best at this price point. Choose a 2-slice toaster unless a 4-slice model is clearly better.

If one option is clearly superior under these criteria, add it to my cart and proceed to purchase. If not, add the best by these measures and I will review and purchase.

The thing about instructions like these is that they totally kill many of the ways online e-commerce sites make money. Amazon doesn’t just make money from selling you stuff and sending it to you. They also make money from product placement, ads, upselling, and a million other ways of nudging you into buying more stuff.

Amazon wants their search bar to be the way that you buy things online. But if the interface for your shopping becomes the AI labs’ platforms, that’s a big deal for e-commerce sites. It’s an existential threat to some e-commerce platforms and a major margins headwind for giants like Amazon and Walmart.

Those are the stakes.

* * *

The injunction in this case arose from Amazon’s challenge to Perplexity’s Comet browser and shopping agent. Perplexity built a tool that allows software to shop for users on Amazon through their logged-in accounts. Amazon sent a cease-and-desist letter. But Comet didn’t stop.

Created by ChatGPT Dec. 2025

The court focused on a familiar question for CFAA folks, which is that Amazon allegedly revoked authorization, Perplexity’s agents continued accessing Amazon’s systems through user accounts, and therefore Amazon was likely to succeed under theories derived from CFAA and California computer-access law.

From a pure CFAA perspective, the allegations were straightforward. Monopolist platform discovers a kind of automation that people who use the Internet enjoy, labels it “unauthorized,” cites to Power Ventures, points to investigative costs, and gets its injunction. It has happened before and it will happen again.

But the genuinely novel issue was totally ignored in the opinion. Perplexity’s Comet is an AI agent. And agentic AI is not merely collecting data. It is acting as the user’s delegated representative in an ongoing workflow.

The opinion makes zero effort to analyze:

• whether an AI agent should be treated like a browser,
• whether it should be treated like a human assistant using delegated credentials,
• whether agency-law concepts matter,
• whether user autonomy creates an independent authorization interest distinct from Power Ventures,
• whether there is a meaningful distinction between scraping data and performing user-directed actions.

Instead, the court seems to jump directly to the conclusion that Amazon retains ultimate authority to exclude the intermediary.

(In partial defense of the court, they hint that they may have discussed this at oral arguments. But there’s no analysis of agentic AI in the opinion itself).

From an agentic-AI perspective, it’s straightforward to ask:

If I can personally log into Amazon and buy a toaster, why can’t I save time and have software do it for me?

Because Power Ventures is dumb and Amazon says so, that’s why.

The Power Ventures framing has always allowed platforms to control their platforms, even when the user wants a certain tool to interact with them, if the integration includes a logged-in component. If there is a password at any part of the flow, most courts find that the CFAA can be used to crush any unwanted integration, no matter how benign or socially useful it is. Log-in plus cease-and-desist has almost always been a CFAA violation.

That’s why Power Ventures matters so much. If Power Ventures controls, Amazon gets to frame Comet as just another unwanted logged-in integration. If it doesn’t, the case becomes about whether users can delegate ordinary account activity to software.

That is also what makes this such an interesting test case for Power Ventures. Amazon wants to put Comet in the Power Ventures box, and legally, that is exactly where a plaintiff wants to be. But the factual analogy is imperfect. Power Ventures was not merely helping users operate Facebook. It built a competing service, collected Facebook users’ information, imported that information into its own platform, and used users’ networks to market itself. Comet’s better factual description is simpler, because the user is still shopping. The user just has delegated parts of the shopping flow to software.

If Power Ventures means that a platform can veto any third-party agent, then the CFAA becomes a platform-control statute for the agentic web. Maybe that is where the Ninth Circuit ultimately lands. But if that’s the case, the CFAA is going to be an increasingly unpopular law.

What’s especially disappointing is that courts continue to pretend that there are not difficult policy questions to consider with these new technologies. It is particularly true in this case, because it was a preliminary injunction proceeding, and the court was required to consider the broader public interest question. Perplexity argued that an injunction would disserve the public interest in consumer choice and innovation.

The court’s response was as thin and fragile as overcooked spaghetti. It said that the public has an interest in preventing unauthorized access to computers, and that was that.

The platform says it’s not allowed, therefore it’s not allowed, and it’s in the public’s interest for it not to be allowed.

See how easily we resolved issues with agentic AI?

Reasoning like this makes the CFAA one giant circle of enforcing platform preferences.

To be clear, there’s an argument for Amazon’s position, too. Platforms have real interests in account security, fraud prevention, bot detection, and knowing whether an automated system is moving through logged-in user accounts. But that’s only a small part of the story.

The anti-competitive implications here are super-obvious. Perplexity’s stated theory of the case is that Amazon does not like a user tool that routes around Amazon’s preferred shopping and advertising experience. AI agents “don’t have eyeballs” for the ads Amazon “bombards” users with. Even if you think that line is a bit cute, the underlying point is real. Intermediaries often threaten incumbents precisely because they reduce friction, reorder presentation, or weaken monetization levers the incumbent would rather preserve. Search engines did that. Price-comparison tools do that. Browser extensions do that. API clients and integrations do that. AI agents will absolutely do that in a way that the platforms are not yet prepared to deal with.

Stated plainly, the public interest section just isn’t serious here. A court need not become an antitrust tribunal every time someone says “innovation” or “consumer choice.” But this fact pattern is different from the fact pattern in Power Ventures. A court has a duty to at least think about that.

—

The other interesting part of this case is it’s another test of the definition of technological harm after Van Buren.

Knowing that the Power Ventures question was always going to be a tough climb, Perplexity also asked some of the other tough CFAA questions that Van Buren didn’t bother to answer. The order recognizes that Van Buren at least raises a question about whether “loss” should be limited to technological harms, and it notes the Ninth Circuit’s comment in hiQ about Van Buren requiring such harms. Then it basically shrugs and says, in substance, “this is going to be resolved in Amazon’s favor,” without any explanation or analysis of whether that’s the correct outcome.

To me, the technological harm question would be the easiest way to separate Power Ventures from benign or socially useful integrations. A few courts have agreed, but many do not.

And whether I like it or not, the Section 502 piece of the opinion is even more “chalk” than the CFAA ruling. California cases have long treated response and investigatory expenses as cognizable losses under Section 502. This also dates back to Power Ventures and beyond. So if defendants already face an uphill fight arguing that CFAA investigative costs must be tethered to technological harm notwithstanding Van Buren’s “technological harms” language, that argument is harder still under Section 502, where Van Buren is not controlling and the California text is friendlier to verification costs.

Regardless, it is hard to imagine that Power Ventures will survive agentic AI forever. Sooner or later, courts will be forced to acknowledge that people should be allowed to delegate to software tasks that they are legally allowed to do themselves, especially as software gets better and better at doing those tasks. But for now, Power Ventures stays intact. Until courts grapple with the power with what agentic AI actually does, the CFAA will remain what large platforms want it to be. Not just a law against hacking, but a legal cudgel against unwanted interoperability or user preferences.

The real task is for courts to acknowledge that platforms don’t need unchecked authority to kill all forms of automation on their platforms, but should instead distinguish malicious automation from disclosed, user-directed software that functions as the user’s chosen interface. I think we’ll get there eventually, but this opinion makes me think it’ll be some time before we do.

The post When Can Amazon Block an Agentic AI Service?–Amazon v. Perplexity (Guest Blog Post) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

In a prior ruling, the court upheld Twitter’s TOS and sent the case from D. Conn. to N.D. Tex. In my prior post, I wrote: “The relocation of the case from Connecticut to N.D. Tex. only delays the inevitable. This case is doomed due to Section 230, among other reasons.” That denouement has now arrived. The court says simply: “§ 230 clearly bars Taddeo-Waite’s claims against X.”

Decision Not to Remove Third-Party Post. “Taddeo-Waite’s claims concerning X’s decision not to remove the anonymous user’s post neatly fall into the scope of § 230 immunity….X’s decision not to remove the anonymous user’s post treat X as the publisher of another’s information.”

Algorithmic Amplification of Third-Party Post (“But the Algorithms”). “§ 230 immunizes X from suit over its decision not to delete another’s post, and whether Taddeo-Waite notified X of the post’s harmful nature is immaterial to X’s § 230 immunity for that conduct.”

Taddeo-Waite highlighted the algorithmic amplification of the third-party post. No matter, same outcome:

Taddeo-Waite contends that X’s application of its algorithm to the anonymous user’s post constitutes the kind of material contribution to that post that can render X a developer and thus an information content provider…these arguments miss that no matter what amplification Taddeo-Waite alleges, this alleged activity has no bearing on the content of the anonymous user’s post…

Taddeo-Waite does not state facts showing how X’s alleged algorithmic amplification of the anonymous user’s post encouraged or contributed to the post’s message. Instead, he only alleges that X broadcast that message once the user had already composed and uploaded it….courts have consistently found that § 230 immunizes web-based defendants from claims that allege harms caused by content recommendation algorithms…

Taddeo-Waite’s claims that derive from X’s algorithmic amplification of a post merely accuse X of exercising the same editorial judgment a publication wields when it decides which writers’ articles to print on the front page and which to print on the back…

X’s algorithm’s role in establishing that reach does not, without more, state a claim against X that can overcome § 230 immunity

As you can see, this judge completely rejects the algorithmic exceptionalism underlying “but the algorithms” arguments. It shouldn’t matter if editorial decision-making is done manually by humans or if humans encode those values into the machines.

X’s Alleged Suppression of His Posts. Taddeo-Waite complained that his posts weren’t getting his desired visibility even though he was a paid X subscriber. Thus, he frames the claim as a contract breach claim. This doesn’t move the court: “it is immaterial that the duty here was contractual in nature. Section 230 does not provide any immunity exception for breach of contract claims.” While I agree with this statement, the Ninth Circuit’s Calise and YOLO cases plainly reach contrary conclusions. This is another example of lower courts deviating from the Ninth Circuit’s 230/promises absolutism.

Having sidestepped the 230-contract interplay, the rest of the case goes quickly:

courts in the Ninth Circuit have routinely held that the plain text of § 230(c)(1) does not foreclose immunity for claims premised on information the plaintiff himself provides…

The approach that courts in the Ninth Circuit have used is persuasive here….the operative question is whether X, the interactive computer service, provided the information at the heart of Taddeo-Waite’s suppression claims. It did not. Until he terminated his account, Taddeo-Waite was an X user and an X poster, and the posts whose suppression he sues over were his own. Because Taddeo-Waite’s claims concerning X’s post suppression concern information provided by “another information content provider,” and because X meets the other two elements of § 230 immunity, X is immune from these claims.

It is mind-blowing to see a Texas court expressly saying it found the Ninth Circuit persuasive. I thought it was a point of immutable Texan independence to knee-jerk reject everything California does, regardless of merit.

In the end, this claim becomes a routine account termination/content removal claim, and it fails like the many dozens preceding it.

Also, I don’t mean to be callous, but I have little sympathy for anyone who subscribed to Twitter’s premium services post-Musk. If you’re paying for greater status in Musk’s petri dish of racism and authoritarianism, I lean towards Team Caveat Emptor. You get what you get and shouldn’t get upset.

(I miss Twitter of old, but I don’t regret not participating in Musk’s X. Find me on Bluesky).

Case Citation: Taddeo-Waite v. X Corp., 2026 WL 1391897 (N.D. Tex. April 23, 2026). This is a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Ray, so it’s pending before supervising Judge O’Connor.

Taddeo-Waite is proceeding pro se. He’s a Democratic candidate for Congress, though I wonder about his odds of success.

The post Section 230 Ends Lawsuit by Twitter Premium Subscriber–Taddeo-Waite v. X appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

YOLO stopped paying its lawyers and stopped fighting in court, so it defaulted in the case. That makes me wonder who can pay off any judgments against YOLO if YOLO is already gone?

Either way, the plaintiffs are proceeding without any opposition from YOLO. And yet…their case is so unmeritorious that the plaintiffs can’t get an unopposed default judgment. Obviously defective cases are what the Ninth Circuit thought was worth wrecking Section 230 to preserve…?

In the past 2 months, the district court has twice rejected a default judgment:

Bride v. Snap, Inc., 2026 WL 855148 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 2026)

In the March ruling, the court rejects class certification. The court flags numerous problems with class formation:

• if the defendant has defaulted, can a class claim really be adjudicated properly?;
• The class claims 26M users, but the plaintiffs based the numbers partially on vibes;
• the class includes non-bullied users and, remarkably, the alleged bullies;
• the named plaintiff’s suicide-based claim materially differs from other claims of bullying;
• the plaintiff lawyers’ interest in the case seems to be waning (maybe because YOLO is judgment-proof?);
• “What is “bullying” in this context? What are “harassing messages,” “objectionable content,” and “inappropriate usage”? Who are “abusive users”? How severe or frequent does a user’s conduct have to be for Yolo to be required to take action?”; and more.

Substantively, the court questions the claims’ merits:

here are Yolo’s statements that Plaintiffs challenge in this case as fraudulent misrepresentations:

• “YOLO is for positive feedback only. No bullying. If you send harassing messages to our users, your identity will be revealed.”

• “YOLO has no tolerance for objectionable content or abusive users. You’ll be banned for any inappropriate usage.”

• “Be kind, respectful, show compassion with other users, otherwise you will be banned.”

The court is hard pressed to conclude that the TAC adequately alleges that, as to element one, those statements were plausibly false promises to future bullying victims (as opposed to threats to bullies); that, as to element two, Yolo knew that by making these statements it was making false promises to future victims; as to element three, that Yolo intended to induce reliance from future victims that Yolo would take affirmative action if bullying, harassment, inappropriate usage, unkind, disrespectful, or noncompassionate behavior occurred; or, as to element four, that that any reliance Plaintiffs exhibited on these statements as promises that Yolo would take such action was justified.

The court adds: “there is a serious question regarding whether the statements challenged as misrepresentations are puffery.” Yes, claims about on-site safety are often puffery. All of this was obvious from the face of the complaint.

In other words, the district court is flummoxed by the aftermath of the venerable Ninth Circuit Section 230 switcheroo. The Ninth Circuit negated Section 230 for promise-based claims, but the “promises” here were never actually promises and thus could never form the proper basis of a claim. Thus, reviving the case gave false hope to the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit has made similar 230 switcheroos at least a dozen times, each time benefiting no one.

The court continues:

Yolo’s First Amendment defense also comes into play here. “Content moderation by social media platforms is generally considered expressive activity and is protected under the First Amendment.”…Consider, for example, a scenario in which this case had proceeded through discovery and Yolo contended that it reviewed some of the messages at issue and had determined that, for whatever reason, those messages did not violate Yolo’s community standards such that they should be taken down. The court’s review of that decision could implicate the First Amendment.

I have raised the same First Amendment concerns for many other cases against social media, including the social media addiction cases.

The court bottom-lines it:

at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs have presented insufficient legal authority and evidence for the court to find it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to grant the relief Plaintiffs seek.

Bride v. Snap Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104978 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2026)

Following the March ruling, the plaintiffs tried to address the judge’s concerns and sought class certification and summary judgment a second time. Their motion remains unopposed, yet it strikes out a second time.

Class Formation: Typicality

“The new class definition still includes people who were not bullied and the bullies themselves, and Plaintiffs are not typical of these groups or adequate to represent them.”

Also, “the court is concerned is that Ms. Bride would be so preoccupied with a wrongful death claim that she believes she (and she alone) has and its significant associated damages that she would give short shrift to her role, or be distracted in her role, as class representative on the class’s claims for misrepresentation and violation of state consumer protection statutes.”

Class Formation: Commonality/Predominance

Plaintiffs allege Yolo made misrepresentations including, “No bullying. If you send harassing messages to our users, your identity will be revealed,”  and “YOLO has no tolerance for objectionable content or abusive users. You’ll be banned for any inappropriate usage.” But for these statements to be false, a trier of fact would have to consider a host of questions regarding each individual situation: what is “bullying”? What are “harassing messages,” “objectionable content,” and “inappropriate usage”? Who are “abusive users”? How severe or frequent does a user’s conduct have to be for Yolo to be required to take action? These individualized issues go to the heart of Plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims….

unlike statements like “this moisturizer is oil-free,” or “this supplement promotes healthy joints in dogs,” Yolo’s alleged misrepresentations add a critical predicate clause—one that indicates the representation will be true only in certain circumstances. In other words, “we will ban you” or “we will reveal your identity” might be sufficiently analogous to “this moisturizer is oil-free”; what sets this case apart from a case where a reliance inference might be appropriate is the portion of Yolo’s representations that tells users when (and only when) Yolo’s promises will be true. Those clauses—such as “if you send harassing messages”; “for any inappropriate usage”; and if you are not “kind, respectful” or do not “show compassion with other users”—involve individualized issues that make the reliance inference Plaintiffs seek inappropriate.

The court seems to be saying that if a marketing representation says “if you do X actions, you will get Y result,” it will hinder class formation because the examination of whether an individual plaintiff did the predicate X actions would require individualized determinations.

No Substantive Merit

The “what is not allowed”-type statements in this case are “YOLO has no tolerance for objectionable content or abusive users,” “YOLO is for positive feedback only. No bullying,” and “[b]e kind, respectful, show compassion with other users.” These “statements of policy” that “simply describe what content is allowed on” YOLO cannot “be considered ‘false’ for purposes of Plaintiffs’ claims.” [cite to Bogard v. TikTok]

The “we remove” statements in this case are “[y]ou’ll be banned for any inappropriate usage,” “[i]f you send harassing messages to our users, your identity will be revealed,” and “otherwise you will be banned.” Plaintiffs’ argument that these statements are actionable because they say exactly what Yolo will do is only half the picture—Yolo said they would do those things when something else happened. Here, like Bogard, the vagueness of the critical threshold criteria renders the alleged misrepresentations too vague to be enforced. The Bogard court commented that “[i]t is difficult to imagine standards more subjective than ‘meaningful’ and ‘accurate enough.'” In the court’s view, “inappropriate usage,” “harassing messages,” “bullying,” and being not “kind, respectful, [or] show[ing] compassion with other users,” are equally subjective….

in each of the alleged misrepresentations, it is clear that Yolo is speaking directly to bullies, telling them that if they engage in certain disapproved behavior, “your identity will be revealed” or “you will be banned.” There is no indication that Yolo is speaking to, or making any representation to, anyone else, including the victims of any bullying, harassment, or unkind, disrespectful, or noncompassionate messages. The court finds insufficient factual allegations supporting the notion that Yolo meant for their threats to bullies—made speaking directly to bullies in the “you” voice—to be taken by victims as enforceable promises that they, people to whom Yolo was not speaking, could rely on….

Finally, the court finds insufficiently plausible Plaintiffs’ allegation that Plaintiffs’ reliance on Yolo’s statements—by using the app believing Yolo would protect them on it—was justifiable.

This time, the district court dismisses the case, so it’s now appealable to the Ninth Circuit–where, presumably, the plaintiffs’ filings will remain unopposed by the nonexistent YOLO. Will the plaintiffs appeal? I presume yes. Will the Ninth Circuit recognize how its bad prior ruling exacerbated this mess?

This case involves many tragedies, including the litigation itself. This lawsuit never should have been brought, and it should not have been revived on appeal. It shows the revictimization inherent in the Ninth Circuit 230 switcheroo. It set up the victims to waste extra time, money, and emotional energy to reach the always inevitable conclusion that this particular lawsuit isn’t the proper way to redress the victims’ harms.

The post The YOLO Remand Shows Why the 9th Circuit Should Stop Carving Up Section 230–Bride v. Snap appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Clicking on the “View your Mention” button leads to this screen:

In both cases, the fact statement that X mentioned Y is presumably true, and it provides a sample of how the Mentions service works for its subscribers. At the same time, it does use X’s name in what looks like advertisements to convert Y to a paying customer. This reminded me of Facebook’s sponsored stories, which similarly relayed a true fact statement (X bought an item from Y) in what was converted into a paid advertisement.

Academia also targeted non-accountholders who visited a professor’s profile, showing them house ads:

The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit over California’s publicity rights. Academia tries to send the case to arbitration three different ways (or, arguably, four different ways). They all fail.

Arbitration Attempt #1: Disclosure about Google’s Privacy Practices

In 2015, Judge used Academia’s “find your friends” feature to import his social graph from Google. Google displayed the following screen in the process:

The disclosure language never mentions Academia’s TOU at all, so…

(Also, Academia is trying to impose the arbitration requirement in its TOU, but the disclosure only permits Academia “to use your information”).

Arbitration Attempt #2: 2022 Google Pop-Out

In 2022, Judge signed into Academia using Google’s login functionality. Academia doesn’t know exactly what that process looked like but this is its “best estimation”:

The disclosure says to “see” Academia’s TOS but doesn’t have an if/then grammar, so….

A reminder that if you’re trying to form the TOS and can’t provide highly credible evidence of what the TOS formation screen looked like, bonne chance.

Arbitration Attempt #3: Judge was a power user

Academia argues that Judge: (1) viewed its website (which contains a link to its Terms of Use) tens of thousands of times, 29 times scrolling to the footer with the Terms link and twice clicking buttons immediately next to that link; (2) twice viewed the website when it had banners announcing that the Terms had changed; (3) opened thousands of emails from Academia containing a link to the Terms, and three times clicked an adjacent link; and (4) viewed the login page in 2016, which contained a notice that “By clicking Sign Up, you agree to our Terms,” and then subsequently created a new account in 2022.

The court says the first three don’t indicate an unambiguous manifestation of assent. As for #4, the court says there’s no temporal coupling (viewed disclosure in 2016, signed up in 2022. Heck, I can’t even remember what I had for breakfast this morning). Arbitration denied.

Section 230

Having denied arbitration, the court turns to the case’s merits. The Section 230 defense flames out:

Academia has materially contributed to the alleged unlawfulness of the conduct here. Judge alleges that Academia sends email advertisements to users stating that he has mentioned their work. The linked webpage in that email informs the user that several papers, “[i]ncluding one written by” Judge, mention the user and asks the user to “Try Premium for $1 and view your Mentions.” Additionally, after a user views Judge’s profile, Academia is alleged to provide that user with similar promotional advertisements. Judge therefore alleges that Academia unlawfully packages user-contributed content—his name and purported mention of the user—within its own solicitation to pay for its Mentions service. Thus, Academia “becomes the developer, at least in part, of that information.”

Academia contends that it is providing “notifications [that] truthfully conveyed user-generated citation information created by plaintiff himself.” Not so. Instead, Academia “transformed the character of Plaintiffs’ words . . . and actions into a commercial endorsement to which they did not consent.” [Cite to Fraley v. Facebook.] The advertisements disseminate Academia’s own message (subscribe to our Mentions service) with only a vague reference to user-generated content. As such, they are not akin to simply “disseminating the same content in essentially the same format to a search engine.” Section 230 does not allow a website to cloak its own advertisements as user-created content and thereby evade state-law liability.

Arbitration Attempt #4: Attempted TOU Amendment

After Judge filed the lawsuit, Academia purported to amend its TOU:

Also, “users must click an “Agree” button referencing the Terms of Use before continuing to use Academia.” The new TOU authorizes the use of accountholders’ names in advertising.

The court treats this purported amendment as a misleading communication to the putative class members, so it triggers the protective provisions of FRCP Rule 23(d). In other words, because the changes affected the rights of class members, sending the email after the lawsuit was filed constituted a regulated communication with putative class members. The court had issues with the lack of disclosure that users weren’t previously bound by the arbitration clause, the fact that clicking on the links apparently constituted the acceptance of “using your account,” and that the new consent-to-advertising provision would extinguish pending claims. So the court strikes the effects of the purported TOU amendments on putative class members.

I’m not sure if it’s novel for the court to treat TOU/TOS amendments during the pendency of a class action lawsuit as potentially improper communications to putative class members, but I can’t recall seeing it before. The court’s approach shuts down some of the potential gamesmanship that some defendants play where they amend the TOS post-filing to try to eviscerate pending claims, with provisions such as claims waivers or arbitration requirements. If you are a defendant in a pending lawsuit and you hope a post-filing TOS amendment can eliminate it, tread cautiously.

Structurally, this case resembles the yearbook and people-finder cases, and it goes about as well for the defendants as those cases have.

Case Citation: Judge v. Academia, Inc., 2026 WL 1256876 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2026). Academia is represented by a defense team from Fenwick and Quinn Emanuel.

Prior blog posts on Yearbook and Genealogy Cases

• Section 230’s Application to Account Terminations, CSAM, and More
• Free-Trial Commercial Database Defeats Publicity Rights Claim–LaFleur v. Yardi
• Another Tough Ruling for People Search Databases–Camacho v. Control Group Media
• Three More Yearbook/People Database Cases Signal Trouble for Defendants
• Background Reports Protected by Section 230–Dennis v. MyLife
• Yearbook Defendants Lose Two More Section 230 Rulings
• Yearbook Database Cases Are Vexing the Courts–Sessa v. Ancestry
• Court Casts Doubt on the Legality of the Data Brokerage Industry–Brooks v. Thomson Reuters
• Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Yearbook Website’s Ads–Knapke v. Classmates
• Section 230 Covers Republication of Old Yearbooks–Callahan v. Ancestry
• Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Advertising “Background Reports” on People–Lukis v. Whitepages

The post TOS Formation Fails, and So Does Section 230–Judge v. Academia appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Tate v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 1146745 (N.D. Cal. April 28, 2026)

This case involves the manosphere enthusiasts the Tate bros, Andrew and Tristian. Instagram terminated six of their accounts for “promoting’ dangerous individuals or organizations’ or for inciting misogyny.” Due to the Tate bros’ legal entanglements in Romania, the bros claimed their deplatforming was connected to “a broader, ideologically motivated campaign, carried out under governmental and corporate pressure, to marginalize dissenting or controversial viewpoints—particularly those of prominent male figures criticizing modern social norms.” The bros sued Meta for a dozen causes of action. Meta defeats the claim based on Section 230.

ICS Provider. “Meta, as Instagram’s operator, is an interactive computer service provider.”

Third-Party Content. “the information at issue (Plaintiffs’ Instagram accounts) was provided by another (Plaintiffs).”

Publisher/Speaker Claim.

Plaintiffs challenge Meta’s decision to terminate Plaintiffs’ Instagram accounts. Meta’s conduct “can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online,” and is therefore immune from liability under section 230.

The plaintiffs argued that 230 doesn’t apply to contract claims. Citing Barnes, the court calls their position “unpersuasive”:

The Complaint is replete with allegations challenging Meta’s decision to “deplatform Plaintiffs,” impose a “blanket ban and improper termination” thereby “sever[ing] them from critical commercial tools and millions of followers causing them substantial and irreplaceable financial loss and damage.” Plaintiffs further allege their removal was “not an isolated enforcement action grounded in neutral application of [the] Terms of Use.” So, drawing all reasonable inferences from the Complaint’s allegations in Plaintiffs’ favor, the duty Plaintiffs allege Meta violated derives from Meta’s decision not to publish Plaintiffs’ content online and thus falls squarely within Section 230.

The court also questions if the bros stated any contract breach. “Plaintiffs have not identified any contractual promise that applies to their Instagram accounts, let alone a promise not to terminate their Instagram accounts without prior notice or a promise to provide a right to appeal.”

(Later, with obvious irritation, the court notes that “despite an hour-long oral argument with many minutes of silence while Plaintiffs’ counsel scrolled through all the potentially relevant documents on his computer, Plaintiffs could not identify any provision to support their assertion of a promise of prior notice and appellate rights”).

1983/First Amendment Claim. “Meta is a private actor and thus its conduct constitutes private abridgement of speech to which the First Amendment does not apply.”

In denying leave to amend the complaint, the court emphasizes that this lawsuit wasn’t close at all:

Plaintiffs’ oral argument statements reveal neither they nor their counsel have a factual basis for alleging state actors were working in concert with federal actors and Meta to violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Nor do they have a factual basis for alleging Meta violated some contractual promise to provide advance notice prior to terminating Plaintiffs’ Instagram account and not providing appellate rights, let alone a basis for alleging such breach caused $50 million in damages.

Andrew allegedly “allocated 400,000,000 of personal funds to battle Google, Meta, TikTok,” yet all that money didn’t turn the Tate bros into lawmaxxers.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs’ lawyers include Raymond Brenneman of Brenneman Apc and Thomas Maniotis of Equity Legal, PLLC. Maybe the Tate bros would have had more courtroom success if they added some women lawyers to their litigation team.

Ligon v. Meta Platforms Inc., 2026 WL 1146091 (N.D. Cal. April 28, 2026)

This is a very long and detailed opinion in response to a pro se lawsuit.

Ligon was a 2024 Republican candidate for the Georgia state senate. He got 633 votes in the Republican primary. Ballotpedia also says that he survived two lightning strikes. Wowza. It made me wonder what message God may be trying to send to him…?

Ligon placed Facebook ads for his campaign, but Facebook quickly pulled the ads and then permanently suspended his personal and campaign accounts. In a footnote, the court recaps Facebook’s emails to Ligon that suggest a plethora of reasons why his ads may have been pulled, including trademarks, fake images of others, content that put others at risk, bypassing Facebook’s ad verification system, and copyright. Ligon sued Facebook pro se for eight different claims.

Section 230

In a footnote, the court rejects Ligon’s “but the algorithms” attempt to say that his content was Facebook’s first-party content:

Defendant’s “editorial decisions” includes publishing decisions, like whether to remove published material, which are covered by section 230(c)(1) when the content was created by a third-party, but such editorial decisions alone do not constitute content creation. Plaintiff does not allege that any content was made or contributed to by Defendant, except insofar as he alleges that Defendant created the algorithm that “drives” the enforcement of Defendant’s content moderation and that this constitutes Defendant’s own content.  However, Defendant’s use of an algorithm to assist in its publishing functions does not take those actions outside the scope of its conduct as publisher so long as the algorithm is not assisting in the creation of content, which Plaintiff does not allege is the case here

The court turns to the publisher/speaker element. The Tate court applied 230 to Meta’s alleged promises to provide pre-termination notice and an appellate right. This court says those are not publisher/speaker claims:

providing notice and an appeals process, even when related to publishing decisions, is not an activity necessarily derived from the status of publisher, and sending emails or other notices about a user’s content is similarly not a traditional element of publication

As a result, the claims predicated on the failed notice and appellate rights aren’t preempted by 230. From my perspective, both the notice and appellate rights would kick in only if Meta decides not to publish the content, so I think they are inextricably linked to publication decisions. In other words, I agree with the Tate decision and disagree with this one.

Section 230 ultimately applies to the other claims. As a general statement, the court notes that “The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that decisions to publish content, or not publish content, or revoke content from publication, are quintessential publishing functions for which interactive computer services cannot be held liable under section 230(c)(1).” [Cite to Roommates.]

The court evaluates Section 230’s application to each claim in significant detail:

Plaintiff’s Claim One is a constitutional cause of action alleging that Defendant violated his First Amendment rights; his Claims Three and Four are related federal statutory claims for conspiracy to violate his civil rights and failure to prevent the conspiracy. These claims are based squarely on Defendant’s decision to remove and suspend Plaintiff’s content. The First Amendment claim is based solely on Defendant’s publishing conduct inherent to its status as publisher and remedy would require it to undertake further publishing activity by reactivating or reposting Plaintiff’s content. The conspiracy claim is essentially an allegation that Defendant coordinated with other entities to make its publishing decisions, and the tools Defendant chooses to use when making publication decisions—including potential consultation with other actors—are part of Defendant’s discretion as publisher whether to publish content. Remedy for this claim would also require Defendant to undertake specific publication actions because the alleged outcome and goal of the conspiracy is the removal of Plaintiff’s content. It then follows that the failure to prevent conspiracy claim is merely an allegation that Defendant failed to prevent a particular editorial decision from being made and enacted, whose remedy would also require Defendant to undertake specific publishing actions. It is immaterial that these claims are premised on the removal of Plaintiff’s content for political reasons—Ninth Circuit courts have consistently held that Section 230(c)(1) immunizes the removal of political content. As such, Claims One, Three, and Four are inseparable from Defendant’s status or conduct as publisher and are barred by section 230(c)(1).

[Eric’s note: the court doesn’t address the seemingly obvious problem that a statute can’t override constitutional protections.]

Plaintiff’s Claim Seven is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that Defendant discriminated against him in the making and enforcement of contracts “by suspending his ads and accounts based on his conservative political viewpoint.” As with the above claims, this claim is based solely on Defendant’s suspension and removal of Plaintiff’s content and profiles, which is essential publishing activity routinely protected by Section 230(c)(1)’s liability limitations….

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim does not allege that Defendant or any of Defendant’s agents made specific, enforceable promises to him related to the suspension of his content; instead, he relies on the general contractual underpinnings of his use of Defendant’s platforms and payment to Defendant. His statement that Defendant’s acceptance of his payment created a duty to publish his content does not constitute an allegation that Defendant made a specific promise to publish Plaintiff’s content which was intended to supersede its discretion as publisher to make publication decisions. Whether based on an implied contract or a document like the Terms of Service, this type of general contract-based allegation has routinely been found insufficient to overcome section 230’s bar on liability for publishing conduct. As written, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is premised solely on Defendant’s decision to suspend his accounts and his advertisements.

[In a footnote, the court adds: “Other courts have gone even further when barring contract claims under section 230(c)(1) to broadly find that contract claims based on the removal of content are inseparable from internet platforms’ status as publishers and are therefore barred. In contrast, still other courts have found that contract claims based on an alleged contractual duty of any kind are not barred by section 230(c)(1).” A shoutout to the Calise and YOLO panels for ratcheting up courts’ confusion on this point.]

Similarly, Plaintiff’s sixth claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is also barred by section 230(c)(1), insofar as this claim seeks to hold Defendant liable for the suspension of Plaintiff’s accounts and ads, for Defendant’s decision to continue publishing other content while removing Plaintiff’s content, and for the frustration of the contract via Defendant’s removal of Plaintiff’s content. Any implied promise by Defendant to use “good faith” or any general statements in the terms of service/use about its criteria when making editorial decisions like removing content is not the type of specific, directed promise that could take this claim out from the umbrella of section 230(c)(1)….Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant enacted the suspensions “in bad faith” does not thwart section 230(c)(1) immunity….

Plaintiff’s Claim Eight for intentional infliction of emotional distress is also barred by section 230(c)(1) to the extent that it is based on Defendant’s removal of his content from its platforms. Plaintiff cannot hold Defendant liable for preventing him from accessing its platforms to publish content or removing his content, as this would hold them liable for its quintessential publishing decisions regarding what information may be published and contained on their platforms

The court then also dismisses everything (both the 230-preempted claims and the non-preempted claims) for lack of merit.

Violations of Constitutional Rights

“Plaintiff’s constitutional claims fail because he has not alleged facts showing that Defendant Meta is a state actor for constitutional purposes.”

Contract Breach

“Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant’s acceptance of his payment created an implied contract by which they agreed to run his ads is directly contradicted by the Advertising Standards and terms of service/use, which reserve to Defendant the ability to reject or restrict advertisements “for violation of [its] policies at any time.””

Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

“Defendant is explicitly allowed under the terms of the contract to reject Plaintiff’s ads for any reason whenever it wants.”

IIED

Plaintiff has not identified any conduct by Defendant beyond the sending of five emails: two of the emails were identical, informing Plaintiff that his accounts or advertisements had been identified as and restricted for using copyrighted music; four of the messages informed Plaintiff of Defendant’s findings upon reviewing the content; and one sent “on behalf of Universal Music Group” included information about the penalties for violations of copyright law and the possibility of a lawsuit. None of this conduct plausibly rises to the level of “outrageous” behavior. There are also no facts alleged to support the contention that Defendant’s conduct was intended to injure or committed with the knowledge that sending such emails was likely to cause extreme emotional distress

Ligon has a better chance of getting and surviving a third lightning strike than winning an account termination/content removal case against Facebook.

* * *

One final point. You may have noted that both plaintiffs in this blog post could be characterized as “right-wing” (I don’t know what qualifies as “conservative” any more). I haven’t crunched the stats, but I believe that “right-wing” plaintiffs are overrepresented in the account termination/content removal genre. Some possible hypotheses about why that could be the case:

• The plaintiffs would argue that it’s because the services are systematically biased against right-wingers.
• There have been numerous studies indicating that right-wingers more frequently post content that transgresses the applicable TOS. Essentially, as civility degrades across our society, right-wingers more frequently embrace content–racism, sexism, violent statements, etc.–that crosses previously set standards for civility.
• Right-wingers are more likely to sue as part of their self-identity as victims and overall feelings of grievance.

I welcome other hypotheses. If anyone want to crunch the data to test my hypothesis, I can help. This could be a good paper topic.

My hypothesis poses some serious challenges to advocates of digital due process requirements. It’s an equity/equality dilemma. We might treat everyone equally with procedural protections for their online speech, but that may not produce equitable results. In practice, people with majority characteristics may be able to weaponize those legal tools to entrench their majority position. See, e.g., Lewis v. Google. If your goal is to raise up disenfranchised voices, watch out for any solution that can be turned around to benefit the majority.

The post Meta Defeats Two More Account Termination/Content Removal Lawsuits appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

In a split opinion, a majority says this TOS formation failed:

Zeus chose to bury the page containing that agreement behind a hyperlink that itself was written in small, gray text that Tejon did not have to click. This text was located beneath large, red action buttons that Tejon did have to click. Was the hyperlink text enough to put Tejon on notice that clicking on the large, red buttons would subject him to binding arbitration? We find that it was not.

* * *

As usual, the majority starts with the wrap taxonomy. The majority says that there are only two wrap options: clickwrap or browsewrap. I wish there were zero nodes on the wrap taxonomy, but if we’re going to have a taxonomy, two nodes is too few to capture the diversity of TOS formation practices. Importantly, the majority doesn’t leave room to categorize the screen as a “sign-in-wrap,” which is how I think it would be how other circuits characterize it.

With only two choices, the majority says this TOS formation process is a “browsewrap.” (The dissent says the “parties agree that Zeus’s subscription page is a browsewrap agreement,” so the problem may lie in Florida/11th Circuit law forcing the binary choice). Once that wrap characterization is made, it’s pretty well accepted that browsewraps aren’t enforceable. In practice, the majority closely followed the Berman opinion from California, which was a sign-in-wrap opinion, and the majority had many other sign-in-wrap precedents to consider if it went looking. #EndTheWrapTaxonomy.

Despite the wrap tangent, the majority proceeds with the standard approach of reviewing whether the TOS disclosure was sufficiently conspicuous. The majority says no.

• “Zeus placed [the hyperlink] beneath two large, red action buttons that were prominently featured at the center of the page.”
• “Zeus’s terms of service hyperlink is printed in a small font on the bottom half of the page. It is easy to overlook given the larger font sizes and bolder colors of other elements on the page.”
• “all the text below the red action buttons, including the hyperlinked terms, appears in a dim, gray color.” The “dim” color phrase reminds me of the Chabolla reference to “timid” fonts.
• The underlined text was indistinguishable from the other text, and “Zeus’s hyperlink is not highlighted in a different color and is not in all capital letters.” CAPITAL LETTERS…SERIOUSLY?
• “Zeus’s terms of service notice simply does not say anything about arbitration. It would have been simple enough for Zeus to state plainly that clicking on one of the red buttons would subject any dispute between the user and Zeus to binding arbitration….Zeus chose instead to place the provision on a separate terms of service page. Having made that choice, it was required to design its website to ensure that a reasonable user would know to click to view the terms of service page, and it failed to do so.” Ugh, I’ve complained many times about this problem with layered notice. A court can always second-guess that the layered notice should have included the thing that is being contested by the plaintiff. This makes layered notices impossible because the top layer has to reference every possibly challengable term, which is all of them.

Notice that the majority doesn’t engage with the transaction context, another key part of the Ninth Circuit Chabolla/Godun tests. In general, the Ninth Circuit presumes that consumers signing up for a subscription will expect terms to govern their ongoing relationship. The majority doesn’t consider that possibility.

The majority summarizes:

None of the things that we have discussed—location on the page, font size, contrasting color, capital letters, underlining, informational content, and so forth—is individually required to pass a conspicuousness assessment. The point of these design elements is to place a reasonably prudent internet user on notice of the agreement at issue. The internet site owner may utilize some combination of these elements, or perhaps something else entirely, to bring attention to the agreement. Even better, the owner could use a clickwrap agreement. But Zeus chose to do none of this.

Judge Branch, a TAFS judge, dissented. She says the “hyperlink was centrally positioned directly beneath the action buttons, where the user’s attention is easily drawn; colored in light gray to contrast with the black background; underlined; appeared the same size as most of the text on the page; and set apart from a block of text below. A reasonably prudent person would not have missed it.”

(As usual, there was zero empirical support from either the majority or dissent for any assessment of what a reasonable consumer would think).

* * *

This ruling brings to mind the lament of Judge Bybee in the Chabolla decision: “Our decision today will drive websites to the only safe harbors available to them, the clickwrap or scrollwrap agreements.” You’ve been warned (repeatedly).

Case Citation: Tejon v. Zeus Networks, LLC, Case No. 24-11114 (11th Cir. May 1, 2026)

BONUS: U.S. v. Blocker, No. 25-1536 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026)

the fact that a contract is lengthy and poorly understood does not justify reading it with a thumb on the scale. The language of this contract unambiguously permits Dropbox to scan all files at its option and reveal the contents for five specified purposes—and Blocker does not deny that, having discovered child porn, one or more of these purposes applies.

The post 11th Circuit Rejects TOS Formation–Tejon v. Zeus appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.