The Rohingya lawsuit against Meta, filed in December 2021 by two anonymous refugees seeking at least $150 billion for Facebook’s alleged role in the Myanmar genocide, was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 28, 2026. The three-judge panel ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded Meta from liability for the anti-Rohingya hate speech that spread on its platform. The plaintiffs have petitioned the full Ninth Circuit for en banc rehearing.1U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 24-16722Law360. Meta Says 9th Circ. Needn’t Revisit Facebook Genocide Ruling
Who Sued and What They Alleged
The case, Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., was filed on December 6, 2021, in the Superior Court of California in San Mateo County and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in January 2022. The plaintiffs proceeded anonymously and sought to represent a putative class of Rohingya refugees living in the United States.3ClassAction.org. Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Their core theory was that Facebook’s algorithmic content delivery system operated as a design defect, “supercharging” the reach of anti-Rohingya hate speech in a country where Facebook functioned as the internet itself. The complaint also alleged that Meta failed to provide adequate Burmese-language content moderation, failed to offer a Burmese-language user interface, and ignored years of warnings from civil society groups about the platform’s role in inciting violence.
A parallel legal effort was announced the same day in the United Kingdom, where McCue Jury & Partners and Mishcon de Reya signaled intent to file in the UK High Court. Together the actions sought more than $150 billion in compensation.4The Guardian. Rohingya Sue Facebook Over Myanmar Genocide
The Factual Backdrop
The claims traced back to August 2017, when the Myanmar military launched large-scale operations against the Rohingya in Rakhine State, killing, raping, and displacing the population. More than 700,000 people fled to Bangladesh.5United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Atrocities Against Burma’s Rohingya Population On March 21, 2022, Secretary of State Antony Blinken formally determined that the military’s conduct constituted genocide and crimes against humanity.6U.S. Department of State. Burma Genocide
The 2018 UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar concluded that Facebook played a “determining role” and had “substantively contributed” to the violence. The chairman described the country as one where “social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media.”7The Guardian. Myanmar: UN Blames Facebook for Spreading Hatred of Rohingya
Internal Meta documents later cited in advocacy reporting reflected the company’s own awareness of the risk. A 2016 document acknowledged that its “recommendation systems grow the problem” of extremism, and a 2019 memo identified “core product mechanics, such as virality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement” as significant drivers of hate speech.8Amnesty International. Myanmar: Facebook’s Systems Promoted Violence Against Rohingya; Meta Owes Reparations
Moderation capacity in Myanmar was minimal for years. As of mid-2014, Facebook had one Burmese-speaking content moderator based in Dublin. By early 2015, it had two. Outsourced monitoring later grew, but former reviewers described handling more than 1,000 items a day with only seconds per decision and being trained to “err on the side of keeping content on Facebook.”9Reuters. Special Report: Myanmar Facebook Hate Civil society activists who met with Facebook officials between 2013 and 2015 later said their warnings were “apparently heard and all but ignored.”10Harvard Kennedy School. Facebook Failure in Myanmar
The District Court Dismissal
The district court dismissed the complaint on timeliness grounds, finding that the two-year statute of limitations had run out before the 2021 filing. It did not reach the Section 230 question.11Eric Goldman. Ninth Circuit Panel Goes Out of Its Way to Question Section 230 — Doe v. Meta
The Ninth Circuit Ruling
The plaintiffs appealed. On April 28, 2026, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed dismissal on a different ground: Section 230 barred every claim. Judge Ryan Nelson wrote the panel opinion.1U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2 v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 24-1672
The panel applied the framework from Dyroff v. The Ultimate Software Group (2019), which held that a platform’s use of content-neutral algorithms to recommend third-party content does not defeat Section 230 immunity.12Brookings Institution. The Supreme Court and Social Media Platform Liability The court walked through three elements: Meta is a provider of an interactive computer service; the plaintiffs’ claims treated it as a publisher of third-party content; and Meta had not made a “material contribution” to the illegality of the specific posts at issue. Facebook’s algorithmic recommendations, its “social rewards” mechanics such as likes and comments, and its content delivery all fell within protected publishing conduct.
The plaintiffs had argued that Myanmar law should govern instead of U.S. law, since Myanmar’s legal framework lacks the tech-industry liability protections in Section 230. The panel rejected the choice-of-law argument, finding that the Myanmar statutes cited did not specifically address tort liability for social media companies, so Myanmar did not have the predominant interest under California’s rules.
Judge Nelson acknowledged the human weight of the case while explaining the limit: “Section 230, as we have interpreted it, bars their claims, and we cannot hold Meta ‘responsible for the unfortunate realities of human nature.'”13The Diplomat. US Court Dismisses Rohingya Hate Speech Lawsuit Against Meta
Judges Criticized the Law They Applied
The panel’s most striking feature was that the judges who upheld dismissal openly questioned the Section 230 precedent that required it. Two concurrences accompanied the opinion.
Judge Berzon, joined by Judge Fletcher, wrote that if she were not bound by circuit precedent she would hold that using machine-generated algorithms to recommend content falls outside the “publishing role” Section 230 was written to protect. She pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, which recognized that platforms exercise editorial discretion when curating content, and argued that framing supports distinguishing passive hosting from active algorithmic promotion. She urged the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider the question en banc.14Courthouse News Service. Meta Beats Hate Speech Suit Over Role in Myanmar Genocide15Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. USA: Appeal Court Dismisses Rohingya Refugees’ Lawsuit Against Meta
Judge Nelson wrote separately to argue that the Ninth Circuit has “over-read” Section 230, turning a narrow shield for publishers into what he called an “all-purpose liability shield” beyond the statute’s original public meaning.16Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Meta Shielded by Publisher Immunity He also noted that the algorithm in this case relied on “primitive technology” dating from 2009, which made the case a poor vehicle for overturning precedent. More advanced, user-specific algorithms, he suggested, might fall outside Section 230, but he left that question for another case.14Courthouse News Service. Meta Beats Hate Speech Suit Over Role in Myanmar Genocide
The En Banc Petition
The plaintiffs have petitioned the Ninth Circuit for en banc rehearing, asking the full court to reconsider the panel’s Section 230 analysis. Meta has opposed the petition and argued that the circuit’s precedent does not require revisiting.2Law360. Meta Says 9th Circ. Needn’t Revisit Facebook Genocide Ruling How the full court handles the request could reshape whether algorithmic recommendation continues to qualify as protected publishing.
Other Cases and Complaints Involving Meta and Myanmar
The U.S. class action is one strand of a wider set of accountability efforts, though these are separate proceedings with their own timelines.
In January 2025, Rohingya activist Maung Sawyeddollah, supported by Amnesty International, the Open Society Justice Initiative, and Victim Advocates International, filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleged that Meta violated federal securities laws by misleading shareholders between 2015 and 2017 about the risks its platform posed in Myanmar, telling investors its algorithms did not cause polarization during a period when civil society was warning otherwise.17Amnesty International. Rohingya Survivor Asks US Regulator to Investigate Meta’s Potential Role in Myanmar Atrocities18Open Society Foundations. New SEC Complaint Says Meta Misled Shareholders Over Myanmar Hate
In September 2021, a U.S. federal magistrate judge ordered Facebook to disclose internal documents and removed content to The Gambia, which is pursuing a case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. The magistrate criticized Meta’s resistance, writing that “locking away the requested content would be throwing away the opportunity to understand how disinformation begat genocide of the Rohingya.”19Forbes. Facebook Ordered to Disclose Evidence in the Myanmar Genocide Case The Gambia’s ICJ case concluded oral hearings in January 2026 and is now in deliberation.20International Court of Justice. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar)
Rohingya refugee youth groups have also filed a complaint under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, currently before the U.S. OECD National Contact Point. Separately, Rohingya groups asked Meta to fund a $1 million education project at the Cox’s Bazar refugee camp in Bangladesh, which Amnesty International characterized as 0.002% of Meta’s 2021 profits. Meta declined, stating that “Facebook doesn’t directly engage in philanthropic activities.”21Amnesty USA. The Social Atrocity: Meta and the Right to Remedy for the Rohingya