Exhibit 1085 · Court opinion
Children's Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 21-16210 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2024)
Specifically, Meta directs those services to review and classify content that its algorithms have identified as potentially containing “misinformation.”
Affirms dismissal of CHD's suit against Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, the Poynter Institute and Science Feedback over fact-check labels, a disabled donate button and ad restrictions, holding the alleged harm came from Meta's own policy and that CHD alleged no government coercion or agreement. The opinion describes how Meta used fact-checkers: Meta directs Poynter and Science Feedback to review content its algorithms flag; false ratings produce a grey overlay with a 'See Why' link; Meta disabled CHD's donate button and barred ads because CHD 'repeatedly posted content that has been disputed by third-party fact-checkers.' Judge Collins concurred in part and dissented in part.
- Source
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Date
- 9 August 2024
- Quoted from
- Slip op. p. 8
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/08/09/21-16210.pdf
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The background facts in the opinion are the court's recitation of the complaint's allegations at the pleading stage. Reported separately from government-request questions (Murthy v. Missouri, exhibit 067).