Background
Florida’s Attorney General sued Meta Platforms and Instagram under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging that their platforms use algorithms and other addictive features designed to maximize young users’ engagement, advertising exposure, and data collection. The complaint sought civil penalties and temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
Meta moved to dismiss, invoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. After the Pasco County circuit court denied the motion in a brief order, Meta sought certiorari review, contending that forcing it to continue litigating would irreparably deprive it of statutory immunity and free-speech rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District dismissed the certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction. It held that section 230 provides limited protection from civil liability in the circumstances described by the statute, not absolute immunity from being sued. Thus, the ordinary burdens of continued litigation did not establish the irreparable harm necessary for common-law certiorari review.
The court also rejected Meta’s First Amendment basis for immediate review. The order merely denied dismissal; it did not restrict Meta’s operations or expression, compel speech, or grant injunctive relief. The court expressly did not decide the merits of either the Attorney General’s FDUTPA claim or Meta’s section 230 and First Amendment defenses.
Key Takeaways
- Section 230 does not supply absolute immunity from suit for purposes of Florida certiorari jurisdiction.
- A denial of a motion to dismiss based on section 230 ordinarily can be reviewed after final judgment absent a showing of distinct irreparable harm.
- A pending lawsuit alone did not establish a present First Amendment injury where no order restricted or compelled Meta’s speech.
Why It Matters
The decision keeps Florida’s enforcement action against Meta in the trial court and limits interlocutory review of section 230 defenses in Florida state court. Platforms asserting section 230 protection may still prevail on the merits, but this ruling treats the defense as protection from liability rather than a categorical right to avoid litigation.