Background
Shared Partnership, a Canadian online-content company, operated Facebook pages and used Meta’s self-service advertising platform for more than a decade. It submitted more than 500,000 advertisements, and Meta rejected more than 18,000 under its advertising policies, including policies addressing sensational, adult, and deceptive content.
In October 2020, Meta terminated Shared’s Facebook pages for repeated violations of its terms and policies. Shared sued, alleging among other claims that Meta converted its property by “unpublishing” the pages. The district court dismissed the conversion claim under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Section 230 bars claims that seek to treat an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. Shared did not dispute that Meta is an interactive computer service or that the pages involved third-party content; its claim nevertheless targeted Meta’s editorial decision to remove the pages and prevent further posting.
Recasting the theory as contractual did not change the result. The relevant Terms of Service authorized Meta to determine whether a user had clearly, seriously, or repeatedly breached its terms and to suspend or permanently disable the account. That provision reiterated Meta’s editorial discretion, rather than creating a distinct contractual obligation like the specific promise at issue in Barnes or the anti-fraud business commitment at issue in Calise. Section 230 therefore foreclosed the claim.
Key Takeaways
- Section 230 protects a platform’s decision to remove user pages and advertisements as a publishing function.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid Section 230 merely by labeling a claim as conversion or breach of contract.
- A contractual provision preserving a platform’s discretion to terminate accounts does not create a separate duty outside Section 230.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Section 230 immunity turns on the substance of the alleged duty and conduct, not the cause of action’s label. Claims challenging a platform’s decision to remove content or terminate access will remain barred when the asserted contractual language simply describes the platform’s editorial authority.