The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 30, 2026, affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Shared Partnership against Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook. The case, docket number 25-2612, centered around Shared Partnership's claim that Meta breached its Terms of Service by canceling Shared's Facebook account. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the protections provided to internet companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from liability for content posted by users.

Shared Partnership, a Canadian-based online content creator, had relied on Facebook for over a decade to promote its content and generate revenue through advertisements. The company submitted more than 500,000 ads to Meta, but faced significant rejections, with over 18,000 ads turned down for various reasons, including violations of Meta's advertising policies. In October 2020, Meta canceled Shared's Facebook pages, citing repeated violations of its terms and policies. This led Shared to file a lawsuit against Meta for conversion and other claims, arguing that the cancellation was a severe blow to its business.

The legal battle began when Shared Partnership sought to challenge Meta's decision to terminate its account. The company argued that it had a property right to its Facebook pages and that Meta's actions constituted a breach of contract. However, the district court dismissed the case, stating that Shared's claims were barred by Section 230, which protects internet service providers from liability when acting as publishers of third-party content.

The court ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet providers from liability if they act as a "publisher or speaker" of third-party content. The court emphasized that Shared's claim, while framed in contractual terms, ultimately sought to hold Meta liable for its publishing decisions. Judge Kenneth K. Lee stated, "The mere existence of a contractual duty is not a talismanic Section 230 loophole." The court maintained that Shared's claim hinged on Meta's role as a publisher, thus falling under the protections of Section 230.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling clarified that Section 230 immunity applies even when a plaintiff attempts to frame their claim as a breach of contract. The court noted that Shared's allegations were intrinsically linked to Meta's publishing authority, as the company sought to hold Meta liable for its decision to "unpublish" Shared's Facebook pages. The court concluded that the claim was effectively about Meta's editorial discretion, which is protected under Section 230.

This ruling has significant implications for online content creators and businesses that rely on social media platforms for advertising and promotion. It reinforces the notion that internet companies have broad discretion in managing user-generated content and can enforce their terms of service without facing liability for the consequences. As a result, businesses using platforms like Facebook must be aware of the potential risks when relying on these services for their operations.

The decision also highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by content creators in navigating the complex landscape of social media regulations and platform policies. The ruling may deter similar lawsuits against internet companies in the future, as it establishes a clear precedent that Section 230 protections are robust and can apply even in cases involving contractual claims.

Looking ahead, Shared Partnership could potentially appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it remains to be seen whether the high court will take up the case. As of now, there are no related cases pending that directly address the issues raised in this lawsuit.