* * *

This is an account termination/content removal case, so you already know the plaintiff is going to lose–the only question is how.

Shared allegedly “creates and publishes original, timely, and entertaining [online] content.” It ran Facebook pages that, at one point, had 25M followers. Shared heavily used Facebook’s self-service advertising, placing over 500,000 ads. Facebook rejected over 18,000 of those ads. The court says “Shared regularly relied on ‘scammy’ ads and ‘blatant clickbait.'” Here is an example of one of their rejected ads:

This ad showed Luke Wilson next to a serious car crash, baiting viewers to click on the ad to check whether he was OK. (He was). Facebook rejected this ad based on its policy against “shocking or sensational content,” including photos that “depict violence.” Shared was upset that it got canned explanations for its ad rejections, rather than personalized roadmaps to correct any problems.

Ultimately, Facebook pulled the plug on Shared’s operations in October 2020. The court summarizes Shared’s claims:

Shared sued Meta for, among other things, conversion and fraudulent inducement, claiming that Meta’s decision to “unpublish[] the Shared [Facebook] Pages” was a business “death sentence.” It based the conversion claim on Meta’s “unpublishing” the Shared Facebook Pages, over which Shared argued it had an exclusive property right.

If none of this makes sense to you, join the club. Conversion is a chattel-based concept, so what is it doing here? It brought to mind the Best Carpet Values v. Google case, where the plaintiff unsuccessfully claimed that web page framing was a trespass to the chattels of intangible web pages. What is it with plaintiffs importing offline chattels-based doctrines into the intangible web?

The lower court dismissed the case. My prior blog post.

* * *

In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit dismisses the conversion claim on Section 230 grounds. “Shared’s conversion claim seeks to impose liability on Meta for “unpublishing” Shared’s Facebook pages.” Labeling the claim as “conversion” was unusual but not creative or productive. The court responds flatly: “Section 230 bars the conversion claim.”

Shared only contested the publisher/speaker element, arguing that the conversion claim was somehow not that. The court easily rejects that:

Shared sued Meta because the latter exercised its publishing prerogative by removing third-party content—i.e., Shared’s Facebook pages. Such a decision to remove content and prevent someone from posting advertisements is a quintessential editorial decision protected under Section 230.

Shared tried to end-run this obvious conclusion by invoking the Calise/YOLO line of promise-based Section 230 exceptions:

Shared contends that its conversion claim effectively “seeks to hold Meta liable for failing to comply with its promise” not to remove Shared from Facebook “unless Shared ‘clearly, seriously, or repeatedly’ breached Facebook’s Terms or Policies,” which Shared claims it did not.

If you read Calise and YOLO literally, Section 230 should fall away once the plaintiff cites any promise made by the defendant. That did not happen here.

First, the court expresses skepticism about whether any promise was made because the TOS “gives Meta unilateral authority to determine whether a business has breached the Community Standards.” However, that’s not a 230 defense, that would be a failure of the prima facie elements. I’ll note that plaintiffs routinely mine a defendant’s site disclosures to identify and overstate alleged promises that are anything but.

Second,

Calise is of little help because Shared still seeks to meddle with Meta’s publishing discretion….a contractual promise that reiterates the company’s inherent publishing authority still amounts to publishing activity protected by Section 230. [Cite to King v. Facebook.] Indeed, it makes little sense to strip Meta of Section 230 liability defense simply because Facebook articulated its discretion as a publisher in its Terms of Service.

The court distinguishes Barnes: “Yahoo’s one-time promise to a specific user was beyond its typical publishing activity.” The court distinguishes Calise: “Facebook in Calise promised to curb advertisements that ‘defraud[] or exploit[]’ for ‘money or property.’ Such a contractual promise does not sound in editorial discretion but rather represents a business commitment to smoke out scammers.” Do those distinctions persuade you?

The court summarizes:

a claim does not automatically fall outside the ambit of Section 230’s liability protection just because it is framed as a breach of contract. Instead, a court must evaluate a claim to determine whether it seeks to treat an interactive computer service as a publisher or speaker of third-party information. That task may include assessing the core theory of the complaint and the nature of the alleged injurious conduct. In our case, Shared’s claim hinges on Meta’s publishing authority, despite being dressed up in contractual garb. Section 230 thus bars Shared’s claim.

In other words, Shared didn’t like having its account yanked, especially after all of the money it spent on Facebook ads, but it’s Facebook’s editorial prerogative to publish or not publish Shared’s content and ads. The net effect is straightforward: an account termination/content removal case fails even when a plaintiff tries the obtuse framing of conversion. No surprises there.

Yet, if you asked me to explain why Calise’s claim didn’t turn on Facebook’s editorial prerogative but Shared’s claim did, I couldn’t do it persuasively. Maybe one way to reconcile it is that Shared was publishing its own content on Facebook, while the plaintiffs in Barnes, Calise, and YOLO were suing based on someone else’s published content? That sure seems like a fine distinction, and the court didn’t make it clearly.  I imagine the Ninth Circuit will have plenty more opportunities to plumb its purported distinctions. I personally think this decision casts more doubt on the wisdom of both Calise and YOLO.

* * *

In a separate unpublished opinion, the court rejects Shared’s misrepresentation claim on statute of limitations grounds. “Shared received thousands of ad-rejection messages with allegedly inadequate explanations starting in 2016. But it did not sue until six years later.” But also, “even if Shared’s fraud claims were timely, Shared waived its fraud claims through its course of conduct over multiple years” because it kept placing orders despite receiving allegedly defective ad rejections.

Case Citation: The published opinion: Shared Partnership v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 3266791 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2026)

The unpublished opinion: Shared Partnership v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-2612 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2026)

Plaintiff’s lawyers were: Cook Alciati of Gardella Alciati, whose bio says he “specializes in intellectual property litigation with a particular emphasis on patent litigation,” and Seth Wiener of San Ramon.

The post Section 230 Blocks Lawsuits That “Meddle” With Online Publishers’ Editorial Decisions–Shared v. Meta appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Damian B Oh, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Robert (Bobbie) “Boyden is a skateboarding legend—known professionally by the nickname Casper—who is credited with having originated, in the 1970s, a skateboarding trick that came to be known as the Casper flip.” You can watch a video demonstrating the move.

Boyden claims that the Hyundai Casper SUV violates his California statutory publicity rights. But his arguments to link the Korean SUV to California were too gnarly, so the case crashes out instead.

* * *

Hyundai introduced a declaration explaining how it landed on this brand name:

the brand strategy team believed the name ‘Casper’ evoked youthful energy as it conjured up images of the child-like cartoon ghost and skateboarding tricks. The name also aligned with [HMC]’s other vehicles since [HMC] often names cars after geographic locations.”…

“As [HMC]’s first mini-SUV, [the Casper SUV] ‘flips’ people’s expectation that the car will be small and weak, when, in fact, it is small and sturdy. [In addition, HMC] ‘flips’ its conventional sales strategy by introducing Casper
as the first car to be sold [exclusively] online.

[Perhaps the IP owners of Casper the Friendly Ghost have stronger legal claims than Boyden does? However, because the ghost is so friendly, it doesn’t haunt the judicial system with bogus lawsuits. Also, allegedly Hyundai didn’t promote this linkage “because of ghosts’ association with death.”].

A few problems with this case should already be obvious:

First, the whole “flip” analogy was subtle. You have to do a lot of cognitive work to make the association they were thinking about. Even when Hyundai explains it, the consumer has to know the Casper Flip by name and then discard the skateboarding concept to extract the “flip” portion as a metaphor for SUV redesigns. I’m sure it made more sense in the brand team’s brainstorming room than when I read it in a court opinion.

Second, Casper made a point of how the “Casper” label has been extended to several other skateboarding moves. There isn’t a clear notion of genericide in publicity rights law. Still, it made me wonder if a name becomes a generic descriptor in a field, can the titular person still exercise control over it?

Third, Casper is the name of a city in Wyoming; and the homophone community of Caspar, California (notice the different spelling) on the Mendocino Coast is a first-rate tourist destination (my wife and I spend a lot of time there). A company can make a geographic reference in its brand without violating anyone’s publicity rights, even if people share the same name.

Fourth, the SUV targeted the South Korean market. It’s not been approved for the North American market. So Hyundai isn’t actually promoting the Casper brand in the US or California.

* * *

That last point highlights a key question: how is this case tied to California? The plaintiff team invested a lot of resources trying to connect the dots, including several “expert” reports.

One “expert” claimed that Hyundai can be sued in California because the Casper SUV marketing invoked a “California ethos”:

“the repeated use of palm trees, beaches, skateboards, and California fashion trends” in HMC marketing materials was “not an accident or something left solely to a marketing agency’s discretion,” but instead was the result of “a series of deliberate design and strategy choices meant to appeal to a specific group of consumers that have a particular affinity—in this case, for California.”

(There are so many songs celebrating the California lifestyle, but this is the one that kept running through my head).

Another “expert” took this angle (emphasis added):

“[T]he Roblox website allowed users to add features to the Casper, do a virtual test drive, and purchase the vehicle through a link on that website. Thus, while it is unclear whether the moment of purchase took place on California servers, it is clear that California infrastructure was crucial to the purchasing process. Customers traveled on a digital highway into California, and either passed through on the way to the purchase point or made the purchase, remotely, in California.”

It’s 2026, not 1995, and yet a so-called expert is invoking the metaphor of Roblox users traveling on a “digital highway” into California??? I’m envisioning those consumers driving their virtual Casper SUVs on the virtual information superhighway to a virtual California car dealer.

* * *

Despite the “experts,” the litigation wipes out for lack of personal jurisdiction. Boyden cannot show that HMC expressly aimed a tort at California.

The appellate court emphatically rejects the idea that a Korean marketing campaign’s “California ethos” can form the predicate for jurisdiction in California:

we begin by dispelling the notion that what Franklin referred to as the “California ethos” could ever be considered as contributing to the establishment of the direct aiming requirement in this or any other case. Many businesses routinely draw on themes or elements evoked by cultures originating from beyond the borders of the state(s) or countr(ies) in which they operate. Such businesses include, for example, restaurants, martial arts studios, foreign language academies, and sellers of apparel. To suggest that a restaurant chain in Japan that offers only gumbo, jambalaya, etouffee, Abita beer, and beignets, that serves those dishes only to customers in Japan, and whose marketing features a fleur-de-lis, mardi gras beads, and zydeco music, should, by virtue of that menu and marketing, be exposed to an increased risk of being haled into court in Louisiana is to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. By the same token, so too would it offend such notions to suggest that a restaurant chain in Louisiana that offers only sushi, sashimi, ramen, miso, and sake, that serves those dishes only to customers in Louisiana, and whose marketing features images of Mount Fuji, cherry blossoms, and samurai swords should, by virtue of that menu and marketing, be exposed to an increased risk of being haled into court in Japan….we reject Boyden’s argument that HMC’s use of the “California ethos” in its marketing should influence our express aiming analysis

If a judge eviscerated my expert report like this, I would run home crying to my mama. It almost felt like Justice Kelety enjoyed detailing how the expert had immolated his credibility. (The lawyers who solicited and based their advocacy on this expert report shouldn’t feel too great about their decisions either).

There are problems with other parts of the case:

• “defendant’s use of digital marketing services made available to it by California-based digital technology companies is, by itself, too slender a reed on which to premise a claim of sufficient aiming activity”
• “the opinions of Franklin and Woolley seem speculative in many respects” because they repeatedly assumed certain facts were “more likely than not” true.
• “neither the declarations of Boyden’s marketing expert nor the declaration of his counsel complied” with California’s procedural rules for making declarations. (Oops).

* * *

There is a good reason why plaintiff’s lawyers generally don’t bring overly speculative publicity rights lawsuits. The California statute (3344) says the “prevailing party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.” In other words, the attorney fee shift is mandatory, not permissive. That puts plaintiffs on the hook for potentially big bucks if they lose, like they did here. Boyden will be receiving Hyundai’s giant bill for its attorneys’ fees, which Team Boyden helped inflate by overlitigating the jurisdiction issue. That payment will be on top of any out-of-pocket payments Team Boyden already made to its “experts.”

Case Citation: Boyden v. Hyundai Motor Co., 2026 WL 3046224 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 12, 2026).

Personnel notes: The plaintiff lawyers in this case were Ochs Law Firm (Jason Edward Ochs) and  Wagstaff & Cartmell (Adam S. Davis and Austin P. Brane). The plaintiff ‘s experts included “the head of strategy at automaker Nissan’s marketing agency, Jeremy Franklin, who described himself as an expert in automotive and digital marketing” and communications professor Samuel C. Woolley, who has an endowed chair in “disinformation studies” (does his scope of research include disinformation in expert reports?).

The post Marketing a “California Ethos” Doesn’t Support a California Publicity Rights Lawsuit–Boyden v. Hyundai appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

* * *

[Note: as discussed below, I previously missed a Florida case previews the developments in this post. It’s still worth talking now because Snap’s choices are wild.]

Kansas state AG Kobach sued Snap for “deceptive and unconscionable practices” in Kansas state court. Like many other plaintiffs, Kobach argues that: Snap publicly lies to avoid getting slapped with mature ratings in app stores, and Snap designed itself to be addictive. Snap removed the Kansas case from state court to federal court, but Kobach sought to remand the case back to state court. This ruling grants Kobach’s remand request.

A case can remain in federal court if it involves “any person acting under an officer of the United States for or relating to any act under color of such office.” The litigant must show “(1) they acted under the direction of a federal officer, (2) the claim has a connection or association with government-directed conduct, and (3) they have a colorable federal defense to the claim or claims.”

To keep the case in federal court, Snap claims that it acted under the direction of a federal officer based on its work for DHS and FDA. For example, “Snap argues that it was helping DHS and the FDA discharge statutorily mandated missions.” Say what now?

First, Snap might not want to be highlighting its work for DHS or the FDA during the Trump era. I imagine many Snap users would not appreciate Snap taking money to become a propaganda proxy for the Trump administration.

Second, and more importantly, Snap has provided fodder to future plaintiffs who want to argue that Snap has become a state actor when it makes content moderation decisions. (There are a variety of ways plaintiffs can state those claims, typically under the umbrella of jawboning). I cannot see any scenario where Snap can financially or logistically handle the legal status of being a state actor. And it’s exposing itself to this potentially existential risk for…the benefit of remanding cases from state to federal court?

Snap could try to mitigate these harms in two ways. First, it can argue that any direction it took from the government was limited to specified topics and doesn’t implicate its broader content moderation function. Second, it could try to distinguish between being a jawboned entity for Constitutional purposes and the specific statutory elements of the removal statute, an argument strengthened by the fact that Snap’s request failed here (but see the Florida counterpart).

Despite that, Snap has provided plaintiffs with easy cut-and-paste material to support those plaintiffs’ claims that Snap “censored” them on behalf of the US government. Perhaps those claims will survive to summary judgment or even a trial where they might have failed on a motion to dismiss. Thus, as the cost of trying to obtain a smallish procedural win (i.e., to reposition what courts hears the cases), Snap has planted the seeds for long-term, expensive, and high-risk legal entanglements.

For that reason, as I read this case, my brain kept thinking of this clip:

* * *

If you want details about Snap’s work for DHS, Snap worked on the following projects:

• “Know2Protect, an educational campaign aiming to prevent “online sexual exploitation and abuse” and promote online safety”
• “Pledge2Protect, a campaign encouraging people “to take action and educate themselves concerning online child exploitation and preventative measures.””
• “Snap has helped DHS build “custom ‘lenses’”—a Snapchat feature that “allow[s] users to add interactive animations to photos and videos”—for its two campaigns”
• “DHS controls “where and how” its advertisements appear in Snapchat. And Snap obeys DHS’s request by targeting its campaigns to teenage users.”
• “Blue Campaign [] aims to prevent human trafficking and educate the public about human trafficking. DHS advertised Blue Campaign in Snapchat and dictated the placement of the ads.”

Some details about Snap’s work for FDA:

“The Real Cost” and “Next Legends” [] try to educate teenagers about the risks of nicotine and tobacco use. Snap helped the FDA build custom lenses featuring interactive animations that give facts about cigarette and vape usage….the FDA advertises in Snapchat to promote its campaigns. It “dictates” “where and how the advertisements” appear in Snapchat. Snap, per the FDA’s request, targets these advertisements to teenage users.

Much of this sounds like standard publisher-advertiser ad targeting interactions, i.e., the advertiser-customer directs the publisher-vendor to get the best ROI from the ads; with the tiny twist that this advertiser is the federal government. However, I couldn’t tell from this discussion how deeply Snap’s DHS and FDA work might have reached into Snap’s general content moderation activities.

The court says none of Snap’s evidence satisfies the statutory standards for being directed by a federal officer. The court summarizes:

No doubt, Snap performed some services for federal officers. Some of those services—like advertising on Snapchat—reflect no more than a standard arms-length commercial transaction. Other services, like lens production and custom research, didn’t involve a federal officer’s “strict guidance or control” over Snap. Snap thus has failed to identify any conduct that qualifies it as acting under a federal officer.

That conclusion ought to save Snap from the risks it has created for itself. However, Snap has successfully advanced this federal officer direction remand/removal argument at least once before in a case I previously missed. Off. of Att’y Gen. v. Snap Inc., 2025 WL 4035005 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-12814 (11th Cir. Aug. 18, 2025).

The Kansas court acknowledges the Florida lower court opinion:

The court respectfully disagrees with that case’s analysis, which suggests that Snap needn’t show a close or extensive relationship with the federal government to satisfy the acting-under prong. That conclusion isn’t tenable under Tenth Circuit law, which requires “strict guidance or control” and “close supervision of the private entity by the government[.]”

The fact that the Florida case is headed to the 11th Circuit makes that a potentially risky case for Snap and the industry generally. Imprecise words or broad statements from the appellate court could really put Snap (and others) into a much deeper legal hole. There’s also the chance Snap will appeal the Kansas ruling, giving a different appellate court the chance to do something wacky and problematic.

Case Citation: State v. Snap, Inc., 2026 WL 2525593 (D. Kansas Aug. 27, 2026)

The post Snap Wants to be a State Actor??–Kansas v. Snap appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Is “Battery Tender” Generic?

The court says that the term “battery tender” isn’t inherently generic because (1) the USPTO registered the term, and “registration puts a heavy thumb on the scale against genericness,” (2) it’s better characterized as a descriptive term because “tend is more a metaphorical than literal description of what a battery tender does,” and it has achieved secondary meaning over 30+ years, and (3) the plaintiff’s principal coined the term.

Keyword Advertising

Keyword bidding doesn’t constitute trademark infringement for a simple reason: It’s not “likely to cause consumer confusion with the plaintiff’s mark.” And it’s unlikely to cause consumer confusion with the plaintiff’s mark for an equally straightforward reason: The use of the plaintiff’s mark for keyword-bidding purposes occurs “behind the scenes,” so to speak. Consumers don’t—indeed, can’t—see the plaintiff’s mark—all that’s visible here is a NOCO ad….A consumer who sees a NOCO-sponsored ad, whether or not driven by keyword bidding, may well recognize the promoted NOCO product as an alternative to consider, but he’s unlikely for that reason alone to mistake it for Deltona’s own offering. Accordingly, confusion here depends on whether Deltona’s mark is visible in NOCO’s ad, not whether an ad that does not display or otherwise reference Deltona’s mark might have been (invisibly) triggered by the mark’s behind-thescenes use as a keyword.

The court acknowledges that keyword ads may distract consumers. However, “so long as NOCO’s ads don’t hold that company out as selling “battery tenders,” consumers aren’t likely to be confused—just potentially overwhelmed by the presence of alternative products.”

The court summarizes: “In holding that keyword bidding can’t constitute trademark infringement, we join the unanimous consensus of our sister circuits.” For this reason, the jury’s damages award needs to be reduced to the extent it was predicated on keyword ads.

Trademark Usage in Amazon Ad Text

This is wheelhouse trademark infringement; NOCO’s conduct was likely to mislead consumers into thinking that it sold “battery tenders.” NOCO insists that its ads weren’t confusing because Amazon marked them as “sponsored” and customers would therefore recognize them as ads. Even so, the sponsored ads’ content effectively stated that NOCO sold battery tenders, which it doesn’t—only Deltona does.

Usage in Amazon Product Description Text

Product descriptions are “below the line,” so to speak, and in smaller print—they are meant to inform a diligent customer rather than grab his attention. As a result, consumers are probably less likely to focus on them in the way they do the ads.

[Citation clearly needed for the last point. The panel appears to be making up hypotheses about consumer behavior.]

The court nevertheless ratifies the jury finding: “We think it clear that a reasonable jury could find that the product descriptions were part of an effort to misappropriate Deltona’s goodwill and confuse consumers.”

NOCO argued that the “battery tender” references in the product descriptions should be excused like keyword advertising. The court distinguishes product listings from keyword ads:

• “Even if less conspicuous or prominent than the ad’s main text, it isn’t entirely invisible to the consumer’s eye in the way that a behind-the-scenes keyword is.”
• The ad’s “sponsored” label would alert consumers of the differences between the companies. [This also seems like a dubious empirical claim.]

The court summarizes:

Even if consumers didn’t actually read NOCO’s product descriptions, NOCO impermissibly held itself out in those descriptions as a seller of battery tenders, rather than a provider of alternatives to battery tenders, as it did, for instance, when using a keyword-bidding strategy to drive traffic to its own products. The inclusion of “battery tender” in the description automatically not only affected Amazon search results but also drove shoppers searching for Deltona’s battery tenders to NOCO chargers without alerting them in any way—through a “sponsored” tag or otherwise—that they weren’t really looking at battery tenders.

[To be fair, NOCO’s attempts to equate keyword ads with product listings seems like it was never destined for success. NOCO had an appellate team of 7 Biglaw lawyers, apparently led by Jones Day and supported by Goodwin Proctor and Troutman Pepper. That’s a lot of very expensive lawyers who signed off on seemingly dubious positions. FWIW, Deltona’s appellate team was 3 lawyers from Shutts & Bowen.]

Other Marketing References

“The evidence supports the conclusion that, from the top down, NOCO actively tried to sow confusion about what a battery tender is.”

Injunction

Among other things, the lower court enjoined NOCO’s use of the term “tender,” even though Deltona’s trademark is “battery tender” and not just “tender.” The appellate court circles one of NOCO’s Amazon ads: “More Than Just A Tender. The Ultimate Charger.” To me, that sounds like comparative advertising or free use of a dictionary word that isn’t covered by a trademark registration, but the appellate court calls that a “loophole.” As a result, the appellate court upholds the injunction.

Implications

NOCO get a new trial to recompute actual damages, stripped of the keyword ads and some other pieces the appellate court reversed. I imagine the parties will settle rather than do a retrial because trial prep would likely cost more than any adjustments to the damages amount.

You can see what happens when a descriptive term (“battery tender”) gets weaponized. A competitor thought they could freely use the term, went too far, and will pay a high price for their error.

Despite the mostly-bad news for NOCO, the ruling does have a major bright spot: the court’s declaration that the 11th Circuit permits competitive keyword advertising, at least so long as the resulting ads don’t include the trademark in the text. This outcome isn’t surprising given how the 2nd and 9th Circuits have emphatically shut down keyword advertising cases. Still, extending that principle to a new geographic region is welcome news.

Emoji Discussion!

The court includes the following transcript of NOCO’s “virtual brainstorming session”:

The opinion shows its emojis! Yay! However, FN 2 says:

The documents in the record converted the emojis to their shortcodes (e.g., :joy: or :rolling on the floor laughing:). For clarity, we have replaced the shortcodes with the actual emojis to reflect the exchange as it presumably appeared between the NOCO employees.

There are a couple of problems here:

• The parties didn’t properly prepare the evidence, so the emojis weren’t properly recorded in the record.
• The judge can’t accurately recreate the emojis this way. First, each platform depicts the shortcodes differently, and the judge doesn’t explain how he picked these particular depictions. The images he picked may not accurately reflect how the emojis were actually depicted. Plus, because emoji depictions evolve over time, shortcodes today may produce a different depiction than the shortcodes did at the relevant time period. Further, emojis may differ in how the sender and recipient see them. As I say in my judicial trainings on emojis, emoji depictions should come in pairs. The judge assumed a canonical depiction, but that is typically a fallacy.

Case Citation: Deltona Transformer Corporation v. NOCO Company, 2026 WL 2236806 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026)

* * *

More Posts About Keyword Advertising

* Another Reminder: Lawsuits Over Competitive Keyword Ads Are Stupid
* Post-Mortem of a Misguided Logo Trademark Lawsuit–LegalForce v. Internet Brands
* The Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine Refuses to Die
* Court Rejects Initial Interest Confusion Claims for Competitive Keyword Ads–Regalo v. Aborder
* Lawsuits Over Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Still Stupid–NRRM v. American Dream Auto Protect
* NJ Supreme Court Blesses Lawyers’ Competitive Keyword Ads (With a Baffling Caveat)
* Ninth Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Ads–Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand
* Second Circuit Tells Trademark Owners to Stop Suing Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Catching Up on Two Keyword Ad Cases
* Competitor Isn’t Responsible for Google Knowledge Panel’s Contents–International Star Registry v. RGIFTS
* TIL: “Texas Tamale” Is an Enforceable Trademark–Texas Tamale v. CPUSA2
* Internal Search Results Aren’t Trademark Infringing–PEM v. Peninsula
* When Do Inbound Call Logs Show Consumer Confusion?–Adler v McNeil
* Court Denies Injunction in Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit–Nursing CE Central v. Colibri
* Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuit Fails…Despite 236 Potentially Confused Customers–Lerner & Rowe v. Brown Engstrand
* More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. Bye, Goff
* Yet More Evidence That Keyword Advertising Lawsuits Are Stupid–Porta-Fab v. Allied Modular
* Griper’s Keyword Ads May Constitute False Advertising (Huh?)–LoanStreet v. Troia
* Trademark Owner Fucks Around With Keyword Ad Case & Finds Out–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon
* 1-800 Contacts Loses YET ANOTHER Trademark Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Ads–1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker
* Court Dismisses Trademark Claims Over Internal Search Results–Las Vegas Skydiving v. Groupon
* Georgia Supreme Court Blesses Google’s Keyword Ad Sales–Edible IP v. Google
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Claim Fails–Reflex Media v. Luxy
* Think Keyword Metatags Are Dead? They Are (Except in Court)–Reflex v. Luxy
* Fifth Circuit Says Keyword Ads Could Contribute to Initial Interest Confusion (UGH)–Adler v. McNeil
* Google’s Search Disambiguation Doesn’t Create Initial Interest Confusion–Aliign v. lululemon
* Ohio Bans Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
* Want to Engage in Anti-Competitive Trademark Bullying? Second Circuit Says: Great, Have a Nice Day!–1-800 Contacts v. FTC
* Selling Keyword Ads Isn’t Theft or Conversion–Edible IP v. Google
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Still Isn’t Trademark Infringement, Unless…. –Adler v. Reyes & Adler v. McNeil
* Three Keyword Advertising Decisions in a Week, and the Trademark Owners Lost Them All
* Competitor Gets Pyrrhic Victory in False Advertising Suit Over Search Ads–Harbor Breeze v. Newport Fishing
* IP/Internet/Antitrust Professor Amicus Brief in 1-800 Contacts v. FTC
* New Jersey Attorney Ethics Opinion Blesses Competitive Keyword Advertising (…or Does It?)
* Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Dr. Greenberg v. Perfect Body Image
* The Florida Bar Regulates, But Doesn’t Ban, Competitive Keyword Ads
* Rounding Up Three Recent Keyword Advertising Cases–Comphy v. Amazon & More
* Do Adjacent Organic Search Results Constitute Trademark Infringement? Of Course Not…But…–America CAN! v. CDF
* The Ongoing Saga of the Florida Bar’s Angst About Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Your Periodic Reminder That Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Passport Health v. Avance
* Restricting Competitive Keyword Ads Is Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
* Another Failed Trademark Suit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising–JIVE v. Wine Racks America
* Negative Keywords Help Defeat Preliminary Injunction–DealDash v. ContextLogic
* The Florida Bar and Competitive Keyword Advertising: A Tragicomedy (in 3 Parts)
* Another Court Says Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Cause Confusion
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Doesn’t Show Bad Intent–ONEpul v. BagSpot
* Brief Roundup of Three Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Developments
* Interesting Tidbits From FTC’s Antitrust Win Against 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Restrictions
* 1-800 Contacts Charges Higher Prices Than Its Online Competitors, But They Are OK With That–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
* FTC Explains Why It Thinks 1-800 Contacts’ Keyword Ad Settlements Were Anti-Competitive–FTC v. 1-800 Contacts
* Amazon Defeats Lawsuit Over Its Keyword Ad Purchases–Lasoff v. Amazon
* More Evidence Why Keyword Advertising Litigation Is Waning
* Court Dumps Crappy Trademark & Keyword Ad Case–ONEPul v. BagSpot
* AdWords Buys Using Geographic Terms Support Personal Jurisdiction–Rilley v. MoneyMutual
* FTC Sues 1-800 Contacts For Restricting Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Will Go To A Jury–Edible Arrangements v. Provide Commerce
* Texas Ethics Opinion Approves Competitive Keyword Ads By Lawyers
* Court Beats Down Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit–Beast Sports v. BPI
* Another Murky Opinion on Lawyers Buying Keyword Ads on Other Lawyers’ Names–In re Naert
* Keyword Ad Lawsuit Isn’t Covered By California’s Anti-SLAPP Law
* Confusion From Competitive Keyword Advertising? Fuhgeddaboudit
* Competitive Keyword Advertising Permitted As Nominative Use–ElitePay Global v. CardPaymentOptions
* Google And Yahoo Defeat Last Remaining Lawsuit Over Competitive Keyword Advertising
* Mixed Ruling in Competitive Keyword Advertising Case–Goldline v. Regal
* Another Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Infogroup v. DatabaseLLC
* Damages from Competitive Keyword Advertising Are “Vanishingly Small”
* More Defendants Win Keyword Advertising Lawsuits
* Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails Badly
* Duplicitous Competitive Keyword Advertising Lawsuits–Fareportal v. LBF (& Vice-Versa)
* Trademark Owners Just Can’t Win Keyword Advertising Cases–EarthCam v. OxBlue
* Want To Know Amazon’s Confidential Settlement Terms For A Keyword Advertising Lawsuit? Merry Christmas!
* Florida Allows Competitive Keyword Advertising By Lawyers
* Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Unceremoniously Dismissed–Infostream v. Avid
* Another Keyword Advertising Lawsuit Fails–Allied Interstate v. Kimmel & Silverman
* More Evidence That Competitive Keyword Advertising Benefits Trademark Owners
* Suing Over Keyword Advertising Is A Bad Business Decision For Trademark Owners
* Florida Proposes to Ban Competitive Keyword Advertising by Lawyers
* More Confirmation That Google Has Won the AdWords Trademark Battles Worldwide
* Google’s Search Suggestions Don’t Violate Wisconsin Publicity Rights Law
* Amazon’s Merchandising of Its Search Results Doesn’t Violate Trademark Law
* Buying Keyword Ads on People’s Names Doesn’t Violate Their Publicity Rights
* With Its Australian Court Victory, Google Moves Closer to Legitimizing Keyword Advertising Globally
* Yet Another Ruling That Competitive Keyword Ad Lawsuits Are Stupid–Louisiana Pacific v. James Hardie
* Another Google AdWords Advertiser Defeats Trademark Infringement Lawsuit
* With Rosetta Stone Settlement, Google Gets Closer to Legitimizing Billions of AdWords Revenue
* Google Defeats Trademark Challenge to Its AdWords Service
* Newly Released Consumer Survey Indicates that Legal Concerns About Competitive Keyword Advertising Are Overblown

The post 11th Circuit Rejects Keyword Advertising Liability–Deltona v. NOCO appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

The question in this case is whether Facebook is liable for the scammy ads. The lower court dismissed the case due to the scienter requirements of Arkansas’ publicity rights statute. At the same time, the lower court rejected Section 230 due to the atrocious Anderson v. TikTok ruling [FN]. Huckabee sought a reconsideration of the court’s initial opinion but got the same result.

FN: In the Third Circuit, publicity rights claims are not covered by Section 230 due to the IP exception. The lower court didn’t address that issue, but Section 230 was unlikely to govern this case either way.

On appeal, with two Trump appointees on the panel (including Judge Bove), the Third Circuit revives Huckabee’s case in an inappropriately brief and inadequately reasoned non-precedential opinion.

The opinion turns on Facebook’s scienter about the scam. A reminder that courts normally don’t reach scienter issues about third-party content (including third-party ads) because Section 230, when it applies, preempts any inquiries about scienter. That’s one of Section 230’s core strengths. When Section 230 doesn’t apply, courts routinely conduct tendentious, epistemological, and often irresolute (or, at least, unpredictable) inquiries into what the defendant “knew” about the third-party content and when. Scienter inquiries are extremely dangerous for online publishers, because courts can often manipulate the scienter standard (in this case, it was set by statute) and plaintiffs can always find some facts that could impute scienter with enough squinting.

Huckabee alleged the following aspects of Facebook’s scienter:

• Meta sells advertisements;
• Meta allows advertisers to pay more to popularize those advertisements;
• Huckabee is a nationally recognized celebrity;
• Huckabee “has been a lifelong opponent of marijuana and its derivatives—i.e., CBD”;
• Meta hosted inaccurate CBD advertisements with Huckabee’s unauthorized name, image, or likeness;
• In one of those advertisements, Meta hosted a fake ‘FoxNews.com’ link;
• Meta approved the advertisements;
• Meta has approved CBD advertisements with fake endorsements from other media celebrities since at least 2021; and
• Meta’s approval and maintenance of the Huckabee advertisements was with actual malice or, at least, with reckless disregard to their truthfulness or accuracy.

This list of Facebook’s alleged sins looks rote and generic. Similar allegations could be made against almost every online publisher of third party content (ads or editorial). Ordinarily, Section 230 should moot these inquiries.

With respect to publisher liability, the Arkansas publicity rights statute specifies a scienter standard of actual knowledge or constructive knowledge, defined as being “aware of facts or circumstances from which a violation of this subchapter is apparent.” This is a DMCA 512 “red flags”-style scienter level, so I rate it as somewhere between recklessness and negligence.

Here is the unpublished opinion’s entire “analysis” of Huckabee’s allegations about Facebook’s scienter (it was one long paragraph; I added paragraph breaks):

As a baseline, the advertisements are premised on a development that Huckabee, a public figure and “lifelong opponent of marijuana and its derivatives—i.e., CBD”–is now endorsing CBD products. While such a stark change of heart can be convincing, in the context of an advertisement, it also raises questions about the legitimacy of the changed position. Those doubts, by themselves, are not enough to infer that Meta had constructive knowledge of the misuse of Huckabee’s name, image, or likeness.

The original complaint tries to bolster that inference by also alleging that Facebook previously hosted similar, fraudulent CBD advertisements using the name, image, and likeness of other media personalities, and that news outlets reported on those instances. That helps, but even the combined effect of those allegations does not cross the plausibility threshold.

Most critically, however, the original complaint states that one of the advertisements displayed on Facebook’s platform linked to a website falsely purporting to be a Fox News article. That bogus link, when coupled with the unusual association of Huckabee and CBD and the prior fraudulent CBD advertisements on Facebook, suffices for allegations that Meta was plausibly “aware of facts or circumstances” from which the advertisements’ misuse of Huckabee’s name, image, or likeness was “apparent.”

To recap, the court says that Facebook didn’t have scienter about the scammy CBD based on (1) Huckabee’s fame or his putative change of position about CBD, or (2) Facebook hosting other CBD scam ads or reading news reports about the scam. The court doesn’t say why these allegations weren’t enough, or why the presence of the other ads “helps” the plaintiffs but not enough to clear the threshold. So far, the court simply spits out two conclusory rejections of the scienter allegations.

The court then says Huckabee magically crossed over the scienter line by combining the prior two sets of allegations PLUS the allegation that “one of the advertisements displayed on Facebook’s platform linked to a website falsely purporting to be a Fox News article.”

What? I have so many questions, none of which were answered by the court’s conclusory statement:

• How would Facebook know the landing page is bogus? Can you tell the differences between Fox News content and parody?
• How should Facebook check every ad link to confirm the landing page’s veracity?
• Could Facebook run some kind of automated landing page validator that would negate its purported scienter, at least to this panel’s satisfaction?
• Many advertisers use multiple ad landing pages that vary by recipient and by ad copy. Would that matter to any evaluation about whether the landing page was bogus?
• Many ads run through affiliates, who may use their own URLs and copy for landing pages. Would that matter to the bogus determination?
• Is the panel saying that only the ad with the “bogus” landing page is still in play, or because one of the ads had a bogus landing page, Facebook now had scienter about all of the ads? I think it’s the latter, but then the court didn’t explain how one ad’s problems impute liability for all of the other ads.

In other words, because the panel didn’t provide any actual explanation, the court’s ruling doesn’t make sense and leaves open many, many key questions.

The court remands the case for further evaluation of the “merits” of Huckabee’s publicity rights claim.

* * *

This ruling is a microcosm of the broader battles over scammy online ads. Since the Goddard v. Google case in 2009, it was black letter law that online publishers weren’t liable for scammy ads per Section 230. Section 230’s applicability to scam ads was overridden by the Calise v. Meta decision. Since then, courts have found a variety of ways to expose online publishers to increased liability for scam ads, at least at early litigation stages.

To be clear, online publishers absolutely must take steps to protect their audience from scammy advertisers. Otherwise, scam advertisers will abuse the audience’s goodwill towards the publisher to make illegitimate sales, driving out the legitimate advertisers and likely taking the publisher down too. We can debate if Facebook does enough to combat scammy ads (I haven’t formed a definitive conclusion on that question). But this ruling represents an implicit broadside against the automated operation of self-service ad programs, asking Facebook to validate something that isn’t within the four corners of the ad copy. Given that it’s difficult or impossible of the publisher adequately validating that information, imposing a legal obligation like that jeopardizes the feasibility of self-service ad tools. That, in turn, could have dramatic effects on advertisers, publishers, and the entire Internet ecosystem.

Case Citation: Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-2347 (3d Cir. June 23, 2026)

UPDATE: On remand, the district court held that Huckabee’s publicity rights claim could proceed. Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2026 WL 2349690 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2026). The court says Meta, as opposed to its advertisers, allegedly made the requisite commercial use of Huckabee’s personality: “Plaintiff’s original complaint alleges that
Defendant sells advertisements to support its operations, accepts payments so that certain advertisements appear more prominently on the feeds of its users, “decides which posts appear at the top of users’ newsfeed to maximize exposure to certain posts, including advertisements,” approved and maintained the challenged advertisements, and that the challenged advertisements reached numerous individuals.” To me, this all still sounds like it should be preempted by Section 230… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

BONUS: 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. But there isn’t any New Jersey 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.”

Something you don’t see every day: the plaintiff’s lawyer’s law firm bio highlights that he is an “active member of MENSA [and] edits and contributes to Proteus, the newsletter for Delaware Valley Mensa.”

The post Scammy Ad Lawsuits Keep Vexing the Courts–Huckabee v. Meta 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.

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.

The court starts off with this broad proposition:

Section 230 compels dismissal of claims seeking to hold platforms liable for activity amounting to sexual exploitation of one user by another when the factual predicate is that the two users engaged in messaging using the platform’s service” [cites to Doe v. Grindr, Doe v. MySpace, Doe v. Snap, Doe 1 v. Backpage, Doe II v. MySpace, In re Facebook, LW v. Snap, Doe v. Grindr (S.D. Fla.), Doe v. Kik.]

Negligence

The plaintiff tried the standard set of arguments that Discord was defectively designed because it didn’t adhere to the plaintiff lawyers’ vision of how services should operate:

Plaintiff’s “Negligence” claims seek to impose liability on Discord for (i) designing its messaging service to facilitate harmful private communications; (ii) allowing “unsupervised” messaging between users; (iii) failing to require phone number verification or otherwise “screen users”; (iv) failing to “implement … parent controls” and “parental notifications” that would monitor and supervise messages; (v) failing to remove user profiles and block messages from adults who message teens; (vi) failing to set default safety settings that would block messages between unconnected users; (vii) offering an “open chat function” without sufficient moderation; and (viii) failing to monitor for, report and prevent the use of [its] app[ ] by sexual predators.”

The court says all of those configuration choices are editorial choices protected by Section 230:

These claims each amount to Plaintiff seeking to impose a duty on Discord to monitor, screen, and block Plaintiff’s communications with other Discord users. All of these duties would require Discord to alter or amend how it publishes, monitors, screens, flags, blocks, or removes users’ messages and profiles, including how it offers to its users “neutral tools” that allow users to communicate in different chat forums and formats. [cite to Jones v. Dirty World (6th Circuit)]

Notice how this court implicitly veers away from the social media addiction rulings in California and numerous other precedents saying that design choices can be agnostic about what content they apply to and therefore are not based on third party content.

Strict Liability

The court treats the products liability claim the same as the negligence claim. The plaintiff complained about the following practices:

The Complaint faults Discord for providing a service that “allow[s] children to come into contact with child predators, and asserts that Discord should provide “[e]ffective parental controls” to stop harmful message exchanges; reconfigure features to “block[ ] direct messaging between child and adult users”; block content from “known abusers”; and offer a more restrictive “[c]ontrolled chat” option.

The court responds that these claims “would require Discord to more perfectly screen for and block harmful messages and alter the operation of the neutral tools it provides users to send messages,” which Section 230 does not permit.

Concealment/Failure to Warn

The court says the concealment/failure to warn claims also second-guess Discord’s editorial decisions. The court says:

Courts cannot accept attempts to repackage what is in actuality “publisher” actions as “torts of omission” to evade Section 230

Thus, “these allegations appear to be simply a restatement of Plaintiff’s negligence claims and product liability claims already found to be barred by Section 230. Put another way, the only way that Discord could address these aspects of its platform would be “to take certain moderation actions” that would eliminate the alleged discrepancy between Discord’s description of its moderation efforts and the “reality” of its moderation – again, “publishing” actions.” [cite to Bride v. YOLO]

Failing to warn users that Discord is a “dangerous” app “is at root a claim based on “publication” choices related to moderation efforts, which fall within the immunity provided by Section 230.” Cites to Bride v. YOLO, Doe v. Grindr, Wozniak v. YouTube.

The court also questions if there was any actual omission: “Discord does disclose and issue transparency reports that – as is the case with any platform that handles an immensely high volume of messages each day – do show that its content moderation efforts are imperfect.”

Misrepresentation

Plaintiff’s claims seek to hold Discord liable for alleged “misrepresentations” by failing to conform its content moderation standards – based on what amounts to its general “aspirational” standards of seeking to provide a platform “safe for minors” – to a level defined by Plaintiff. [The Grindr court distinguished] claims based on actual specific and defined contractual promises [from] general aspirational goals regarding platform content moderation

The litigation over “safe” content moderation is decades-old and completely confused.

Third-Party Content

Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Complaint does it accuse Discord of creating the offensive messaging, but rather the Complaint seeks to hold Discord liable for facilitating – or failing to moderate – sexually exploitative offensive messaging created by others. The fact that Discord may have provided the “tools” by which Plaintiff and her alleged abusers exchanged messages, to “carry out what may be unlawful or illicit” does not make Discord a “content provider,” but rather treats Discord as a “publisher” of (offensive) messaging created by third parties.

Implications

A reminder that sexual predation cases involve heartbreaking facts. Section 230 often arises in tragic circumstances.

The Section 230 jurisprudence is coming apart at the seams, as illustrated by this ruling. I think this court got it right and disagreeing courts got it wrong. However, there is now enough precedent on both sides of every issue to vex everyone. This opinion carefully prioritized appellate rulings, which have largely rejected the design defect workarounds to Section 230. However, many more design defect cases are heading to appellate courts across the country, and any appellate deviation in any one of those cases will tear Section 230 even further apart.

Case Citation: Jane Doe v. Discord Inc., 2026 WL 1067574 (N.D. Ohio April 20, 2026). The complaint.

The post Section 230 Helps Discord Defeat “Defective Design” Claims Regarding Sexual Predation–Jane Doe v. Discord appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

* * *

The court summarizes the state’s claims:

The Commonwealth alleges that Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC (collectively, Meta), engaged in unfair business practices by designing the Instagram platform to induce compulsive use by children, engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately misleading the public about the safety of the platform, and created a public nuisance by engaging in these unfair and deceptive practices.

Meta moved to dismiss on Section 230 and other grounds. The lower court denied the motion. Meta sought an interlocutory appeal, which the MA Supreme Court permitted, but only to review the Section 230 issue.

In this ruling, the MA Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the lower court that Section 230 didn’t immunize Meta when “the claims allege harm stemming from Meta’s own conduct either by designing a social media platform that capitalizes on the developmental vulnerabilities of children or by affirmatively misleading consumers about the safety of the Instagram platform.”

Section 230

Treated as Publisher

The court starts with its own “plain language” review of what it means to be treated as a publisher. When courts decide to review a 1996 statute from scratch in 2026, after over a thousand Section 230 cases have been decided, that’s usually an indicator that they are engaging in results-oriented decision-making, they don’t like the precedent, and they need another way to reach a different result.

Worse, the court extensively analyzes the word “publisher” but doesn’t say a word about the companion “speaker” term that appears two words later in the statute. This is another indicator of results-oriented decision-making. No matter what the court says “publisher” means, if the court disregards one of the other 26 words that has direct relevance to its meaning, the court is failing its #1 job of reading the damn statute. This omission is extremely embarrassing for the court, and it thoroughly undermines the credibility of the court’s recitation of precedent.

(I would say that the botched statutory reading would be the kind of thing that should be fixed on appeal, but the US Supreme Court’s specialty is selectively reading statutes and precedent to support results-oriented decision-making, so I guess other courts are emboldened to do that too…?)

The court tries to sum up its “plain language” review. Citing the awful Henderson 4th Circuit (which the Fourth Circuit itself has implicitly repudiated), the court says:

These courts have rejected the argument that § 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability “anytime there is a ‘but-for’ causal relationship between the act of publication and liability,” as it “bears little relation to publisher liability at common law.” Engaging in traditional publishing activity “alone is not enough.”…

(Note: along the way, the court includes quotes of the mockable “get-out-of-jail-free” and “lawless no-mans-land” characterizations of 230, despite my prior debunking of both phrases. Another way the court undermined its own credibility).

Because “the plain meaning of the statute lends itself to competing constructions,” the court then turns to the legislative history for more insight into the meaning of the word “publisher.” This leads to the one-millionth retelling of the Cubby/Stratton Oakmont storyline, with no new payoffs.

Instead, citing Henderson again, the court restates the statutory language in garbled fashion: “Congress intended to immunize interactive computer service providers against claims that would hold them liable as intermediaries for injuries caused by information provided by third-party users of their platforms.”

Relying on that garbled restatement, the court says:

we decline Meta’s invitation to read § 230(c)(1) immunity so broadly as to encompass all claims that implicate publishing activities regardless of whether the claims seek to hold the service provider liable for the content of the information published….

a claim treats a provider as a publisher of information where it meets both the dissemination and content elements.

I’d need to see how Meta argued this, but it feels like the court is rejecting a strawman. Meta publishes third-party content–everyone agrees on that. The service features challenged by the state AG relate to the manner in which Meta presents that third-party content to Meta’s audience. To me, a publisher’s choices of what third-party content to publish and how to publish that third-party content are integrated decisions. In other words, the content selection and presentation decisions are part of the same publication decision. As an analogy, consider a dead-trees newspaper’s decision to publish a story: it is equally part of the newspaper’s editorial prerogative and publication decisions to decide to publish the story at all and to decide if the story should appear on the A1 front page or some interior page; what size typeface to use for the story headline; whether the story runs all on the same page or continues on a later page; etc. As applied to Meta, the decision to vary the delivery timing of new third-party content items (as one example) is just as much of Meta’s publication decision-making process about publishing the third-party content as whether the item will be published at all.

In any case, by saying that 230 only applies to claims that derive from the substance of the third-party content item, the court can disregard a LOT of precedent that applied Section 230 to design defects. The court says the only oppositional precedent is some language in the Social Media Addiction federal decision, which the court denigrates by saying the judge in that case “did not appear to consider the common-law origins of publisher liability or the statute’s legislative history. We are not persuaded by its reasoning.” [Yes, it’s jarring to see Meta cite the CA social media addiction case as support for its position given that how poorly the California cases have been going for Meta.]

Liability Based on Third-Party Content

Claim for unfair business practices. Having said that Section 230 distinguishes the decisions of what content to publish (230-protected) and how to present it (not protected by 230), the court is positioned to uphold all of the claims.

The court says: “The challenged design features (e.g., infinite scroll, autoplay, IVR, and ephemeral content) concern how, whether, and for how long information is published, but the published information itself is not the source of the harm alleged.”

Meta responded that “in the absence of third-party content, the design features could not facilitate addiction in young users.” (My framing: if social media delivers third-party content, what exactly are users “addicted” to?). The court replies:

But the fact that the features require some content to function is not controlling; instead…to satisfy the content element, we look to whether the claim seeks to hold Meta liable for harm stemming from third-party information that it published. Here, the unfair business practices claim does not; the Commonwealth alleges that the features themselves prolong users’ time on the platform, not that any information contained in third-party posts does so. In this sense, the claim is indifferent as to the content published…

the fact that a claim concerns publishing activities, including the use of algorithms in connection with publishing activities, is not enough to bring the claim within the immunity provided by § 230(c)(1)

In a footnote, the court adds: “with respect to the notifications feature, Meta appears to be the information content provider.” But…what content is included in the notifications, and where does it come from?

In a slight piece of good news, the court rejects the state’s Lemmon v. Snap analogy because Lemmon’s “claims did not concern the provider’s publishing activity at all. [Eric’s note: the Lemmon plaintiffs expressly disclaimed all liability based on the content produced by the filter.] By contrast, here, the challenged features are publishing tools that control how Meta publishes content to users of its platform.” I wish more courts would similarly reject the plaintiffs’ many miscitations to Lemmon.

Claim for deceptive business practices. The claim “is based on Meta’s own speech — its allegedly false statements that Instagram is safe and not addictive, and that Meta prioritizes young users’ well-being, despite internal reports and communications suggesting awareness of the harmful effects of Instagram.” There are obvious puffery/opinion defenses that could apply here (see, e.g., the YOLO remand in Bride v. Snap, Inc., 2026 WL 855148 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 2026) that I will eventually blog) but are not at issue in the 230 discussion.

Also, some courts have applied Section 230 to false advertising claims when those claims are fundamentally based on how the service handles its content moderation decisions, such as claims about “safety.” The court doesn’t acknowledge that precedent and instead treats Section 230 as categorically inapplicable to false advertising claims.

Claim for defective age-gating. “the claim focuses on Meta’s own affirmative misstatements about the inaccessibility of its platform to underage users.” Another possible puffery issue.

Nuisance. I’ve previously complained before about courts’ complete undertheorizing of how and why public nuisance claims can apply to social media, and this court doesn’t do any better. In a footnote, here is the court’s entire discussion about Section 230’s application to the public nuisance claim: “Because we conclude that § 230(c)(1) does not bar counts I to III, we also conclude that it does not bar the Commonwealth’s public nuisance claim, which is predicated on the same allegedly unfair and deceptive practices in counts I to III.”

What Happens Next?

Meta could appeal this ruling to the US Supreme Court. That would be a risky move because the US Supreme Court could really go sideways on a decision like this. Also, I’m skeptical the US Supreme Court would grant cert.

Meta could choose to prioritize winning this case on remand on non-230 grounds. For example, the MA Supreme Court validated that Meta’s service features at issue are part of its content publication process. Perhaps that will revitalize Meta’s First Amendment defense?

Whether Meta chooses to appeal or double-down on remand, it’s likely that the CA federal and state court social media addiction cases will have important new developments before any material developments happen in this case. Those developments could swamp the effects of this lawsuit. For example, if Meta loses more bellwether trials in California, the outcome of this case may be comparatively inconsequential.

Quo Vadis Section 230?

This is not a good opinion for Section 230 on several dimensions.

First, as a state supreme court decision, it’s the final word for the Massachusetts state court system (unless the US Supreme Court intervenes). It provides a major beachhead for other courts to follow, both within Massachusetts and beyond.

Second, this court didn’t rely on the Lemmon “design defect” workaround. Instead, it said that the claim doesn’t relate to third-party content unless it’s based on the substance of the third-party content. This provides plaintiffs with another avenue to work around Section 230 in addition to the Lemmon/design defect workaround that other courts are accepting (even if they shouldn’t).

Third, as I explained, I don’t see any distinction between third-party content and the editorial choices about the manner of presenting that third-party content. By embracing that false dichotomy, the court invites plaintiffs to reframe their complaints to focus on content presentation instead of substance. Here’s how a plaintiff’s argument could look: “I’m not suing about the third-party content, I’m suing about the design choices that elevated that third-party content over others.” These are literally the same thing in my mind. If this argument works, Section 230 is dead because plaintiffs will always embrace that workaround.

Even if this opinion doesn’t outright eliminate Section 230 in Massachusetts, it’s a sign of how 230 workarounds keep proliferating, contributing to the swiss cheese-ification of Section 230. When the bubbles in the swiss cheese become too large, the cheese wedge lacks structural integrity and falls apart. That is where 230 is heading, if it’s not already there.

Case Citation: Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 497 Mass. 384 (Mass. Supreme Jud. Ct. April 10, 2026)

The post With Opinions Like This, Congress Doesn’t Need to Repeal Section 230–Massachusetts v. Meta appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.