Is Social Media Humpty Dumpty? For twenty-five years Section 230 has served as a liability shield for online platforms and granted immunity to websites from being treated as the publisher of third- party content. In the late 1990s, online platforms were fledgling enterprises, and the argument was they needed the protection of Section 230 to enable growth of the online Internet. Savvily, brick by brick, the social media companies figured out how they could utilize the 230 protections to promote their most valued objective, user engagement. The more time spent, the more value. They were confident Section 230 granted them full immunity. They introduced algorithms, product design, and autoplay, among other enticing features. They grew to be the kings of the Internet, perched on a wall of billions in profits. But there was a growing chorus of complaints by parents, family organizations, and the medical community, claiming the content on these platforms was causing mental and physical harm, even death to children and young adults. The courts, after turning a blind eye for years and accepting the blanket immunity argument, started taking a closer look. Cracks started appearing in the facade. Warnings by farsighted judges chipped away at the immunity defense. In the 2026 Los Angeles and New Mexico District Court cases involving thousands of plaintiffs, the social media platforms were forced to payout hundreds of millions in damages. Then, in the San Francisco case brought by 51 Attorneys General, Meta, sensing a potential losing hand, settled for 17 billion dollars and forced accommodations to their platforms. Yet, there are still thousands of cases out there. Odds are one of them will get to the Supreme Court. Like Humpty Dumpty, will social media have a great fall, or will they be able to stay atop of the wall? That’s this CLE.