* Meta, Google plan to appeal, may invoke Section 230

protection

* Thousands of lawsuits target tech firms over platform

design choices

* Potential implications for other online platforms

beyond social media

* Supreme Court may weigh in on Section 230 scope,

experts say

By Diana Novak Jones

March 26 (Reuters) - Jurors in the first two trials in

the U.S. from a growing wave of lawsuits targeting social media

firms over harm to children have found Meta and

Alphabet's Google liable, potentially teeing up an

appeals fight that could reshape how U.S. law shields tech

companies from lawsuits.

In California, a Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found Meta and

Google liable for a young woman's depression and suicidal

thoughts after she said she became addicted to Instagram and

YouTube at a young age, ordering them to pay a combined $6

million in damages. In a separate New Mexico case, jurors on

Tuesday ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding the

company misled users about the safety of its products for young

users and enabled the sexual exploitation of children on its

platforms.

The verdicts pierce a legal shield that plaintiffs suing

tech companies have long struggled to overcome: Section 230 of

the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 federal law that

generally protects online platforms from liability over

user-generated content. In both cases, the plaintiffs

sidestepped that hurdle by arguing the companies harmed young

users through decisions they made about the platforms' design

rather than the content itself.

"Courts are increasingly trying to distinguish claims about

platform functionality or platform conduct from claims that

would really just impose liability for third-party speech," said

Gregory Dickinson, an assistant professor at University of

Nebraska College of Law who studies the intersection of tech and

the law.

Meta and Google have denied the claims, arguing they have

taken actions to protect young people.

META, GOOGLE CLAIMED LIABILITY SHIELD

In both cases, Meta urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit,

as did Google in the Los Angeles case, claiming they were

shielded from liability by Section 230. The judges rejected the

argument, saying the cases could move to trial.

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment beyond noting that

Meta plans to appeal in both cases. Google has said it plans to

appeal in the Los Angeles case, but did not immediately respond

to a request for comment.

Those appeals are almost certain to center on Section 230 -

and they could have broad implications.

Meta, Google, Snapchat parent Snap Inc, and TikTok parent

ByteDance are facing thousands of lawsuits in both state and

federal court over claims their design choices have led to a

mental health crisis for teens and young people. More than 2,400

cases have been centralized before a single judge in California

federal court, while thousands of cases are consolidated in

California state court.

Legal experts say courts have been moving toward a narrower

view of Section 230's liability shield. Several lower courts

have ruled that companies' platform design choices are not

protected by the law, but no appellate court has weighed in.

Appellate courts, not trial judges, are the ones whose rulings

bind other courts.

IMPLICATIONS BEYOND SOCIAL MEDIA

An appellate ruling on Section 230 could have implications

beyond social media, legal experts say, shaping lawsuits against

other online platforms that host content used by children. More

than 130 lawsuits are pending in federal court against Roblox

Corporation, for example, accusing the popular gaming site of

failing to protect users from sexual exploitation. Roblox denies

the claims.

"I think the internet is on trial, not social media," said

Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at

Santa Clara University School of Law. "If the theories work,

they will be deployed elsewhere."

Appeals in both cases would be heard first by appeals courts

at the state level. But they could go to higher courts after

that.

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a willingness to

potentially decide the scope of Section 230. In 2023, the court

heard a challenge involving Google's video-sharing platform

YouTube, but ultimately sidestepped a ruling on the legal

protections for internet companies.

In 2024, the high court declined to hear a Texas teen's bid

to revive his lawsuit accusing Snapchat owner Snap of failing to

protect underage users of its social media platform from sexual

predators. Two conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Neil

Gorsuch - dissented from that decision, however, warning of

further delays in addressing the issue. "Social-media platforms

have increasingly used (Section) 230 as a get-out-of-jail free

card," they wrote in a dissent.

Meetali Jain, director of the Tech Justice Law Project,

which brings litigation against tech companies, said she thinks

the U.S. Supreme Court may now be open to weighing in on the

scope of Section 230.

"I personally think that the Supreme Court is even ready for

a case like this, for the right case," Jain said.