Page 9 - Kattison Avenue Newsletter - Spring 2026 - Issue 16

Importantly, Bouck is a ruling at the motion to dismiss stage —
the court accepted the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and did not
make any factual findings on the merits. Still, by allowing claims
to survive dismissal on the theory that a platform’s GenAI tools
can make it a “creator” of unlawful content, Bouck may lower
the barrier for plaintiffs to initiate lawsuits against social media
platforms and proceed to discovery, potentially impacting the
business of AI-generated advertising. But the decision is not
binding and may never be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, and other
appellate circuits might never follow suit. It may simply reflect
an increasing wariness about the AI boom and a desire to hold
internet service providers liable for unchecked technological
advancement. Still, social media companies should beware.

See Vincent Kilbride, AI Is Turning the Ad Business Upside Down, The economisT
1
(Jun. 18, 2025), https://www.economist.com/business/2025/06/18/ai-is-
turning-the-ad-business-upside-down (“For brands placing ads, “AI has the most
potential to improve business outcomes that they’ve seen in the last 20 years,”
believes Sean Downey, president for the Americas at Google.”); Mike Haddad, AI
Needs Regulation, but What Kind, and How Much?, The economisT (Apr. 20, 2024),
https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2024/08/20/ai-needs-regulation-
but-what-kind-and-how-much? (“Lawmakers worry that overly strict regulation
could stifle innovation in a field where America is a world leader; they also fear
that regulation could allow China to pull ahead in AI research.”).
47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2)
2
3 Id. at §§ 230(c)(1), 230(f)(3).
Id. at § 230(b)(1).
4
5 Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1196–97 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Suddeth
v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-08581-RS, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62629,
*4–9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026).
Id.
6
7 See Laurie Harris, Generative Artificial Intelligence: Overview, Issues, and
Considerations for Congress, Library of congress (Apr. 2, 20205), https://www.
congress.gov/crs-product/IF12426
See 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62626 at *2–3.
8
9 Id. at *9 (emphasis in original).

Id. at *13 (emphasis in original and added).
10
11 Id. at *12–14 (citing Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F. 3d 1119, 1124
(9th Cir. 2003)).
12 Id. at *14.

See Forrest v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 3d 808, 818 (N.D. Cal. 2024);
13
see also Bouck, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62626 at *10 (finding averments that
Meta’s AI tools generated the text and images used in the ads “are stronger”
than averments that Meta’s tools “optimiz[ed] the appearance of an ad to drive
engagement” as in Forrest).
14 See, e.g., Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 75–76 (2014); U.S. S.E.C. v. Fehn,
97 F.3d 1276, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996).
15 POM Wonderful LLC v. Purely Juice, Inc., 362 Fed. Appx. 577, 579 (9th Cir. 2009).
See Bouck, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62626 at *17.
16

9