Two jury losses have given plaintiffs momentum against Meta, but they haven’t rewritten the rules for social media. One case relied on New Mexico consumer-protection laws. The other asked a California jury whether addictive design contributed to a young woman’s mental-health issues.
The verdicts, detailed by The Wall Street Journal, reached Meta through different legal routes. Together, they suggest Section 230 becomes a less dependable shield when a lawsuit centers on choices made by the platform itself.
What two verdicts haven’t settled
Neither jury created a universal rule that strips social media companies of Section 230 protection. Google plans to appeal the California decision, while Meta says it will contest the cases individually. Later judges could also reject the reasoning that persuaded these juries.
The scale still raises the stakes. California’s trial was the first of thousands of consolidated lawsuits involving several major platforms. Plaintiffs now have an argument that has worked twice, even if it remains vulnerable to appeals and different juries.
Why the product itself is on trial
Section 230 generally prevents platforms from being treated as the publishers of user-generated content. These plaintiffs focused on infinite scroll and notifications, features the companies chose to build and refine.
That changes what a jury is being asked to judge. The question moves away from who posted harmful material and toward what Meta and Google did to keep people consuming it. Meta counters that a feed’s mechanics can’t be separated neatly from the content they organize. It also says the cases threaten its free speech rights.
The tension is difficult to dismiss. Social media companies spent years turning engagement systems into products, but now need courts to treat those same systems as part of publishing.
What could make the opening last
Product-design claims have opened only a narrow route around Section 230. Appeals courts could close it by ruling that features such as infinite scroll remain inseparable from the content moving through them.
The next appeals and bellwether trials will provide the useful evidence. If the design argument keeps surviving, platforms may have to defend how their products hold attention rather than relying on a law written around who published the content. If it fails, these verdicts will look less like a turning point and more like two juries reaching the same temporary conclusion.
