Walter Simons, an attorney for the woman identified as Jane Doe in court filings, told an appellate panel in San Francisco that the judge who last year dismissed Doe’s lawsuit as barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act had incorrectly concluded Doe demands Meta moderate sex trafficking content. Kristin Linsley, Meta’s lawyer, told the panel that Doe’s claims were different from those in the Twitter case, where the plaintiffs had repeatedly reported the child pornography images to X to no avail. Rather, she said, Doe’s claims were more akin to those of a Ninth Circuit decision earlier this year that had found claims by Rohingya plaintiffs against Meta, including the lack of a Burmese-language platform, were barred by Section 230.