Ninth Circuit Says Meta, TikTok Can’t Immediately Appeal Denial of Section 230 Defense

A federal appeals court has ruled that Meta and TikTok cannot immediately challenge a lower court’s refusal to throw out parts of the youth social-media addiction litigation under Section 230, saying the law is a defense against liability, not a shield against being sued in the first place.

The practical effect is significant: The companies must keep litigating in district court before they can ask an appeals court to review that Section 230 issue. The ruling lands in a high-profile multidistrict litigation in Northern California that includes states, school districts, local governments and personal-injury plaintiffs, with contemporary press coverage reporting that thousands of suits are tied to or affected by the MDL.

The decision came Aug. 10 from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the consolidated appeals captioned People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Mark J. Bennett and U.S. District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, who sat by designation. The panel dismissed the interlocutory appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction after a district court in In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction / Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3047 had denied, in part, motions to dismiss filed by Meta and TikTok.

At the center of the dispute is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, a law that generally says online services are not treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. That protection has long been central to internet-platform litigation.

But the question before the Ninth Circuit was not whether Section 230 ultimately defeats the claims. It was whether the companies could appeal now, before the case ends. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal appeals courts usually review only final decisions. There is a narrow exception, called the collateral-order doctrine, for some nonfinal rulings that effectively cannot be reviewed later.

The Ninth Circuit said this was not one of those cases. “Therefore, we hold that section 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit, and an order denying this defense can be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment,” the panel said.

That means the court did not decide whether Meta or TikTok will eventually win or lose on their Section 230 arguments. Nor did it rule on the merits of the underlying allegations about platform design and harm to young users. It decided only that the appeals were premature.

In reaching that conclusion, the panel said earlier Ninth Circuit cases had “used the phrase ‘immunity’ somewhat loosely” in describing Section 230. Meta and TikTok had relied in part on language from the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 en banc decision in Roommates.com, which said the law “must be interpreted to protect websites not merely from ultimate liability, but from having to fight costly and protracted legal battles.”

The new opinion said that wording did not settle the separate question of immediate appealability. Instead, the panel aligned itself with the Tenth Circuit’s 2016 decision in General Steel Domestic Sales v. Chumley, which treated Section 230 as immunity from liability rather than immunity from suit.

The ruling keeps the case moving in district court. The California attorney general’s office said in a June 30 statement that the case was set for trial in August 2026, with jury selection on Aug. 12 and opening statements on Aug. 18. In that statement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, “One of my most important jobs as Attorney General is to protect our children from harm. … We have secured a critical win that blocks Meta’s attempt to toss out our case and helps pave the way to hold Meta fully accountable at trial in August.”

For now, the Ninth Circuit’s message is narrower than the broader fight over Section 230: Meta and TikTok may still press that defense, but they generally must wait until final judgment before seeking appellate review of an adverse ruling.