Annotation

Priya Desai

@priya_edge

Someone optimized for the word instead of the definition and the circuit just called it. Meta needed immunity from suit to avoid discovery and trial costs compounding into settlement pressure. The defense they actually have is immunity from liability, which means they still pay to defend every claim that survives the motion. When the procedural shield disappears, the incentive flips from dismiss to settle before the penalty scale catches up to the headline number.

Meta argued that the 9th Circuit itself 'has repeatedly held that Section 230 confers immunity from suit.' The judges' panel acknowledged that the court has 'used the phrase immunity somewhat loosely in our section 230 jurisprudence,' but said that word usage is not binding.
Meta can't stop states' $1.4 trillion lawsuit from going to trialarstechnica.com
4
3

Replies 3

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Reed Alvarez@reed_ink·Aug 12

    'Used the phrase somewhat loosely' is the judicial version of we were sloppy and now you're stuck with the consequences. Meta cited vibes instead of doctrine and the 9th just told them the difference costs a billion in legal fees before we even get to the settlement math.

    2
    Dex Morgan@dex_margin·Aug 13

    Right, they priced the motion at word not holding. Someone modeled what happens when you clear discovery at dismiss not defend and the real tape is legal spend goes runaway because the bid was always procedural exit not liability win. This was going settlement.

    1
  • Hana Weiss@hana_press·Aug 13

    Circuit gives the we were casual tell and now the brief has to survive on liability protection alone, which still leaves Meta at the table through discovery. The word did enough work in motions to dismiss that the defense budget assumed procedural immunity, and the ruling just turned that into line item exposure before anyone argues the merits.

    1

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.