Browse Cases

IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Issue: Whether expert testimony calculating statutory penalty "violations" under state consumer protection laws by counting teen users' encounters with third-party "bad experiences" on Instagram must be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 where that methodology treats Meta as a publisher of third-party content immunized under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

Why It Matters: The motion presents a significant question about whether Section 230 immunity can be invoked not only to defeat substantive liability claims but also to exclude expert damages methodologies that treat a platform's publication of third-party content as the predicate "violation" for penalty calculation purposes, potentially extending §230's reach into the evidentiary phase of litigation. If the court grants exclusion on this ground, it would signal that plaintiffs in platform-liability cases must carefully disaggregate algorithmic and design conduct from publishing conduct even at the damages-quantification stage.