On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, the New York Court of Appeals will hear Patterson v Meta Platforms and related appeals, including Salter v Meta Platforms. The case is first on the Court’s Tuesday calendar, with arguments beginning at 2:00 p.m.
Watch the argument: Court of Appeals live oral-argument webcast
Court’s preview: Court of Appeals September 2026 case summary
The Appeal’s Importance
The Court of Appeals’ summary frames the central dispute neatly.
Survivors of the shooting and families of victims allege that the social-media defendants defectively designed their platforms with recommendation algorithms and other engagement features that contributed to the shooter’s addiction, isolation and radicalization. The defendants contend that the claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.
The distinction is critical: are plaintiffs attempting to impose liability on the platforms for publishing third-party speech, or are they attacking the design of the products themselves?
That distinction divided the Fourth Department.
The Decisions Below
Supreme Court, Erie County, denied the social-media defendants’ motions to dismiss and permitted the claims to proceed. The court accepted, at the pleading stage, plaintiffs’ theory that the alleged defects concerned the design of the platforms rather than simply the third-party content appearing on them.
Read the trial court’s decision in Patterson v Meta Platforms, 2024 NY Slip Op 34778(U)
The Fourth Department reversed 3-2. In Patterson v Meta Platforms, Inc., 244 AD3d 29 (4th Dept 2025), the majority concluded that the claims were “inextricably intertwined” with the publication of third-party content and therefore fell within Section 230’s protection. The dissent viewed the allegations differently, focusing on alleged product-design features such as autoplay, infinite scroll, push notifications, age verification and account-deletion mechanisms.
Read Patterson v Meta Platforms, Inc., 244 AD3d 29 (4th Dept 2025)
The Fourth Department reached the same result in the related Salter appeal.
Read Salter v Meta Platforms, Inc., 240 AD3d 1395 (4th Dept 2025)
The questions now before the Court of Appeals include whether social-media platforms can qualify as “products” for New York products-liability purposes, whether Section 230 or the First Amendment bars the claims, whether the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause, and whether the shooter’s criminal conduct constitutes a superseding cause as a matter of law.
An Argument Worth Watching
The quality of the advocacy should match the importance of the issues. Terrence M. Connors, Andrew M. Debbins and their colleagues and co-counsel have done exceptional work advancing a difficult theory at the intersection of traditional tort law and modern technology. Connors LLP’s lawyers have been involved in the litigation at both the trial and appellate levels.
Read more about Connors LLP and its attorneys
On the other side is an unusually deep group of appellate lawyers representing the technology companies, including counsel from Orrick, Wilson Sonsini, O’Melveny, Hueston Hennigan, Morrison & Foerster and Harris Beach Murtha Cullina. Among them is Lisa A. LeCours of Harris Beach Murtha Cullina, who represented 4chan in the Fourth Department and previously served as Chief Clerk and Legal Counsel to the New York Court of Appeals, the Court’s highest-ranking nonjudicial position.
Lisa A. LeCours — Harris Beach Murtha Cullina
That combination—an unsettled intersection of tort law, technology and constitutional law, a closely divided Fourth Department, and experienced appellate counsel on both sides—makes this one of the more interesting civil arguments on the Court’s September calendar.
What Happens Next?
I will follow the oral argument and return to the case when the Court of Appeals hands down its decision.
The Court generally decides argued cases within 30 to 60 days, so a decision could arrive during the Court’s October or November session.
When it does, the decision could have implications well beyond this litigation. It may tell us something fundamental about how traditional New York tort principles apply when the alleged “product is not a machine, building or consumer good, but a digital platform designed to keep its users engaged.
For more analysis of New York appellate procedure, preservation, standards of review and appellate exposure, see the New York Civil Law Appellate Strategy Resources page.
New York Appellate Strategy Resources
Questions This Case May Answer
Can a social-media platform be a “product” under New York products-liability law?
That is one of the principal questions before the Court of Appeals in Patterson v Meta Platforms.
Does Section 230 protect social-media companies from claims attacking allegedly addictive platform design rather than third-party content?
The Fourth Department majority said the claims remained intertwined with publishing activity. The dissent viewed at least some of the allegations as independent product-design claims. The Court of Appeals will now address that divide.
Photo Credit: Mariia Berezovsky