Here is the full case text from Doe v. Meta from the Ninth Circuit. 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/28/24-1672.pdf

In my opinion, the court would have to reverse years of case law to rule differently vs Meta. 

A similar situation happened years ago in the Fifth Circus of Appeals in Doe v. Snap. The 5th Circus ruled that Snap wins because of Section 230 case law from their own court (Doe v. Myspace) but asked for a full review. The Fifth Circus came dangerously close but a full review upheld Snapchat's win but they sent an SOS flare to Justice Clarence Thomas to review and take the case. He heard their cries (with Gorsuch) but 7 others said the case wasn't worth review. 

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/12/many-fifth-circuit-judges-hope-to-eviscerate-section-230-doe-v-snap.htm

\>The plaintiff then sought en banc review. Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit denied the en banc request in a vote of 7 for review and 8 against review (with 2 judges not voting). Snap’s dismissal stands, but by a razor-thin margin.

\>The judges supporting review issued a dissent to the denial, written by Judge Elrod. As you might expect from the Fifth Circuit (where, as I’ve said often, the rule of law goes to die), the dissent opinion is painful reading filled with misinformation and shifting goalposts.

\>The dissent’s primary goal seems to be to urge the Supreme Court to take this case

9th Circuit Judges Urge Full Court to Rethink Section 230 Precedent as Meta Beats Genocide Case