"Meta beats hate speech suit over role in Myanmar genocide", 28 April 2026

Meta won’t have to face a suit accusing Facebook of failing to curb hate speech fueling Myanmar’s brutal Rohingya genocide by encouraging violent online content, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled on Tuesday.

The panel found the claims barred under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

“Plaintiffs believe that Facebook’s design, coupled with the darker elements of human nature, caused real-world harm,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in a 20-page opinion. “But Section 230, as we have interpreted it, bars their claims, and we cannot hold Meta ‘responsible for the unfortunate realities of human nature.’”

Two anonymous Rohingya plaintiffs initiated a class action against Meta in 2022, seeking at least $150 billion for harms from product liability and negligence...

A federal judge tossed the case in 2024 due to an expired statute of limitations, but the plaintiffs appealed and urged the Ninth Circuit to reconsider...

The plaintiffs claimed the platform’s core design and function increased the harms and encouraged users to create violent posts. In particular, the plaintiffs pointed to Facebook’s implementation of an algorithmic content delivery system, which they asserted promoted “toxic posts” because those posts gain more user interaction...

The chairman of a United Nations fact-finding mission said Facebook played a “determining role” in the genocide...

The plaintiffs asserted the court should consider Myanmar law over the act, but the panel was not convinced...

U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote separately to concur but addressed the court’s precedent regarding Section 230 of the act, and U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher, a fellow Clinton appointee, joined.

“If not bound by Circuit precedent, I would hold that section 230 does not bar the claims raised against Meta in this case because ‘websites’ use of machine-generated algorithms to recommend content and contacts are not within the publishing role immunized under section 230,’” Berzon wrote. “I again — even more emphatically on this go round — urge this court to reconsider en banc our precedent extending section 230 immunity to recommendation of content and connections to users.”

Nelson, too, wrote a separate concurrence to address the scope of Section 230. He said the court has “over-read” the section and strayed from the original public meaning of the statutory text and created an all-purpose liability shield for internet platforms.