103 F.4th 732
9th Cir.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, Meta users, sued Meta (Facebook) after being defrauded by scam advertisements posted by third parties on Meta’s platform.
- Plaintiffs allege Meta knowingly allows, solicits, and provides assistance to scammers—particularly China-based advertisers—despite internal knowledge that many violate Meta’s own policies.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and unjust enrichment.
- Meta invoked Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as an affirmative defense, claiming immunity as an interactive computer service provider.
- The district court dismissed all claims, finding Section 230 immunity applied; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held (Court’s Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 230(c)(1) bars non-contract claims | Meta materially contributed, thus not immune | § 230(c)(1) broadly bars all claims based on third-party ads | Immunity applies; non-contract claims are barred |
| Whether § 230(c)(1) bars contract-based claims | Contract liability is separate from publisher status | Claims stem from publisher conduct; immunity applies | Immunity does not extend to contract-based claims |
| If Meta “materially contributed” to scam ads | Meta’s solicitation/assistance to scammers removes immunity | Neutral tools, no development of unlawful content | No material contribution; immunity stands for non-contract |
| Proper standard for evaluating § 230(c)(1) scope | Broader than ‘but for’ publishing; focuses on duty’s source | “But for” test—all claims stemming from publication are barred | Duty-based analysis required; contract/source distinction key |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (drew line between immunity for publisher-based liability and contract-based liability)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (clarified when online platforms lose § 230 immunity for materially contributing to unlawful content)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (duty to warn distinct from publisher status; § 230 not a defense where duty springs from another source)
- Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) (section 230 does not immunize where liability arises from product design, not publishing)
- HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 918 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (ordinance did not trigger publisher immunity because it imposed liability apart from third-party content)