Welkin v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Issue
Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and request for injunctive relief arising from third-party content on Meta's platform, and whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Meta.
What Happened
Meta filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Carly Welkin's complaint on multiple grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction (both general and specific), failure to state claims for copyright infringement and IIED under Rule 12(b)(6), and Section 230 immunity. Meta argues it is an interactive computer service provider immune from liability for third-party content, that the complaint seeks to hold Meta liable for traditional editorial functions (content moderation/recommendation decisions), and that plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead her claims. Meta alternatively requests transfer to the Northern District of California pursuant to a forum selection clause in its Terms of Service.
Why It Matters
This motion presents a standard Section 230 defense against IIED claims based on third-party content, testing whether Meta's editorial and recommendation functions qualify for publisher immunity. The case also illustrates the routine procedural posture in platform litigation where defendants assert multiple grounds for dismissal including lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, statutory immunity, and contractual forum selection, providing insight into Meta's current litigation strategy post-Moody v. NetChoice.