EPIC Leads Coalition of Tech Accountability Groups, Legal Scholars in Telling Ninth Circuit to Deny Meta Section 230 Protections for Alleged Addictive Design

Yesterday, EPIC, Common Sense Media, Cybersecurity for Democracy, the Tech Justice Law Project, and eleven legal scholars of digital rights, platform governance, and Section 230 filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit explaining why Section 230 does not block claims that Meta designed its platforms to be addictive for kids. The appeal stems from a lawsuit filed by thirty-three attorneys general alleging Meta violated the states’ unfair and deceptive trade practice laws through its design choices and representations of those choices.

In the amicus brief, the coalition explains that the purpose of Section 230 was to prevent the “moderator’s dilemma,” which forces internet companies to choose between hosting user-generated content, not moderating that content, or moderating the content in an overly censorious way. The coalition shows that the Ninth Circuit has continuously interpreted Section 230 to be limited to preventing the moderator’s dilemma. The brief demonstrates that Section 230 does not block the addictive design claims against Meta because these claims do not put Meta into the moderator’s dilemma. The company could choose alternative designs that mitigate the harm to kids without touching user content. The brief assures the court that denying Meta Section 230 protections here won’t break the internet. In fact, denying Meta Section 230 protections here would incentivize more pro-social platform design by ensuring greater accountability when companies design their platforms in harmful ways.  

EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases involving Section 230’s application to platforms’ harmful design decisions.