A Federal Appeals Court Just Cleared 3,000 Addiction Lawsuits Against Meta, TikTok and YouTube — and Refused to Delay a 29-State Trial Starting Wednesday

A federal appeals court on Monday allowed more than 3,000 lawsuits to proceed against Meta Platforms, Alphabet's Google, ByteDance's TikTok and Snap over claims the companies deliberately engineered their products to hook young users, rejecting an industry argument that a 1996 internet law should have killed the cases before they ever reached a jury.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned away the companies' attempt to overturn a lower-court ruling that kept the litigation alive, concluding that the appeal had been filed too early. The defendants had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the provision that generally shields online platforms from liability for what their users post — also bars claims that they failed to warn the public about the addictive design of their products. The panel disagreed on the procedural question at the heart of the appeal, holding that Section 230 supplies a defense to liability, not an immunity from being sued, and that the companies therefore could not appeal before the case concluded.

The distinction is narrow on paper and enormous in practice. Immunity from suit can be invoked at the outset to end a case; a defense to liability has to be argued on the merits, after discovery, in front of a judge or jury. The companies had appealed orders issued in 2023 and 2024 by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who oversees the consolidated federal litigation in Oakland, California, and who had largely allowed the claims to move forward.

In a second blow, the appeals court denied Meta's request to postpone a trial set to begin Wednesday in a case brought by 29 state attorneys general. That suit alleges the company illegally collected and used children's data, designed its platforms to keep young users hooked, and misled consumers about how safe those platforms were. Meta had argued the trial could not go forward while its appeal was pending. A representative for Meta and a spokesperson for the lead attorneys in the appeal did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The federal cases were filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individual families, and they allege the platforms intentionally addicted young users, contributing to a rise in depression, anxiety and body-image problems among American adolescents. Plaintiffs sought damages, penalties and restitution. Separately, the companies face hundreds of similar suits in state courts, including roughly 3,300 consolidated in California state court.

Two recent verdicts explain why Monday's procedural ruling matters so much to the industry. In March, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent for designing platforms that harm young people and awarded $6 million to a now-20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to Instagram and YouTube as a child — the first case in the California litigation to reach a verdict, and a closely watched test of how juries respond to these claims. Meta also lost both phases of a landmark New Mexico case: a jury ordered it in March to pay $375 million for misleading consumers about platform safety, and last Thursday a judge found the company had created a public nuisance, ordering an additional $567 million and requiring youth-safety measures. Meta and Google have denied the claims in both cases and said they will appeal.