DOE 1, ET AL. V. META PLATFORMS, INC.
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action brought by two Rohingya refugees who sought to hold Meta Platforms liable for violence in Myanmar allegedly fueled by Facebook’s engagement-based algorithms. Relying on its own precedent, the court held that all of the plaintiffs’ California tort claims treat Meta as a publisher of third-party content, so 47 U.S.C. § 230 bars the suit. Separate concurrences criticized the breadth of Ninth Circuit § 230 doctrine and urged en banc reconsideration.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether § 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes social-media platforms from liability for harms allegedly caused by their algorithmic recommendation and amplification of third-party content.
Circuit Positions
Algorithmic recommendation of user content is publishing conduct; § 230 provides immunity.
Recommendation algorithm is the platform’s own speech/content; § 230 immunity does not attach.
Conflict Summary
The Ninth and Second Circuits treat recommendation algorithms as classic publisher functions; therefore, claims attacking such algorithms are barred by § 230. The Third Circuit has held that an algorithm is the platform’s own expressive product, so § 230 does not protect the platform from liability arising out of recommendations.