People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Procedural Issue

Appellate jurisdiction — collateral order doctrine; whether a denial of Communications Decency Act § 230 immunity is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Holding

The Ninth Circuit held it lacked appellate jurisdiction over Meta's (and TikTok's) interlocutory appeals from district court orders partially denying their motions to dismiss on Communications Decency Act § 230 grounds, because such orders are not immediately appealable collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. To satisfy the collateral order doctrine, a ruling must (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits, and (3) be effectively unreviewable after final judgment — all three Cohen factors are independently required, and the panel held none was met here. Central to the decision was the distinction between immunity from suit (effectively lost if a case erroneously proceeds to trial, satisfying factor three) and immunity that is merely a defense to liability (adequately vindicated on post-judgment appeal). Because § 230 does not expressly confer immunity from suit — its 'no cause of action'/'no liability' language in subsection (e)(3) is better read as intentional belt-and-suspenders preemption drafting than an implied grant of suit immunity, and its subsection (b)/(c)(1) policy language shows only an intent to create a liability defense — the panel held § 230 provides a defense to liability, not immunity from suit, joining the Tenth Circuit's Chumley decision (the only sister-circuit authority on the exact question) and expressly declining to treat its own prior loose use of 'immunity from suit' language in section 230 cases as controlling, since none of those cases actually decided the collateral-order question. The panel also held the ruling failed the first Cohen factor because the district court signaled willingness to revisit § 230 immunity later given the 'novel' theories and 'flux' in the law, and failed the second factor because determining § 230 immunity necessarily requires examining the content and context of the plaintiffs' factual allegations — not something separate from the merits. Appeals and cross-appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

Directly controls any interlocutory appeal from a district court's partial denial of a CDA § 230 motion to dismiss in the Ninth Circuit: such an order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, so counsel defending on § 230 grounds needs a different vehicle — a § 1292(b) certified interlocutory appeal (which the district court can still refuse, as it did here) or waiting for final judgment — rather than assuming an as-of-right appeal exists. More broadly useful any time a client wants to immediately appeal the denial of an 'immunity' defense: courts look past the label 'immunity' to ask whether the statute or constitutional provision actually confers a right not to be tried at all (rare, and typically reserved for government officials or explicit statutory grants like the PREP Act) versus merely a defense to liability that a post-judgment appeal can adequately vindicate. Loose 'immunity from suit' language in prior opinions that never actually addressed appealability isn't binding — don't rely on stray phrasing in cases that assumed jurisdiction without deciding it. And even after clearing the suit-vs-liability distinction, remember all three Cohen factors are independently required: an issue that intertwines with the merits (as § 230's publisher/speaker analysis does, since it requires parsing the complaint's factual allegations) or a ruling the trial court signals it may revisit later will independently defeat collateral-order jurisdiction.

About This Entry

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Topic: Jurisdiction
Month: September 2026
Publication status: Published
Last verified: 2026-09-02

Using this website or submitting a conflict check does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not extend, suspend, stay, or otherwise affect any legal, trial-court, appellate, or other deadline or proceeding.