Business Account Disabled? Ninth Circuit Explains Section 230’s Limits on Platform Claims

Shared Partnership, a Canadian online content creator, used several Facebook pages and Meta’s self-serve advertising service for over a decade. In October 2020, Meta canceled Shared’s Facebook pages, stating that Shared had repeatedly violated its terms and policies. Shared disputed that characterization and sued, alleging conversion among other claims and asserting a property interest in the pages. The district court dismissed the conversion claim under Section 230. ¹

On appeal, Shared recast its theory in contractual terms, arguing that Meta had promised not to remove it unless it “clearly, seriously, or repeatedly” breached the platform’s terms. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal. ¹²

Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), a claim must be dismissed when the defendant is a provider of an interactive computer service whom the plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider. Publishing includes editorial functions such as reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or withdraw third-party content. ¹³

This publisher-or-speaker provision is distinct from subsection (c)(2), which separately addresses good-faith restrictions on access to material. Section 230 is not blanket immunity for every commercial dispute with a platform. ³

Changing a claim’s label to conversion or contract does not resolve whether Section 230 applies. Courts ask whether the duty the plaintiff alleges derives from the defendant’s role as a publisher, and what that duty would require the platform to do. ¹²

The terms language Shared relied on stated that if Meta determined a user had clearly, seriously, or repeatedly breached its terms, Meta “may suspend or permanently disable access” to the account. The court concluded that this language restated Meta’s editorial discretion rather than creating an independent promise, and that Shared’s claim hinged on Meta’s publishing authority. That reasoning is tied to this opinion; it does not mean every account suspension is protected. ²

The court distinguished earlier decisions in Barnes and Calise, where certain promises were treated as separate from publishing activity—a one-time promise to a specific user in Barnes, and a business commitment to combat scam advertisements in Calise. The source and content of the specific duty matter. ²

Not every promise in platform terms is enforceable, and not every contract claim escapes Section 230. And where Section 230 does not apply, a claimant must still prove the remaining elements, including breach, causation, and damages. ²

In a companion memorandum issued the same day, the panel affirmed summary judgment for Meta on Shared’s misrepresentation claims as time-barred. That disposition is nonprecedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 and is separate from the published Section 230 holding. It does not establish that every alleged representation was truthful, and it does not announce a limitations period for all platform disputes. ⁴

A practical starting record includes:

Maintaining lawful backups and alternative customer channels can reduce dependence on any single platform. Losing revenue after a suspension does not by itself establish a right to reinstatement or recovery.