Coming from someone who hate social media (and has kids) this might seems like a good thing on the surface, but I worry it will be another case used to allow the government to limit speech on the internet for adults.
Product liability is a subdivision of tort law that allows for recovery for damages caused by the makers or distributors of a product. This case has nothing to do with Section 230, the plaintiff successfully argued that the product was defectively designed and caused harm to the plaintiff.
Section 230 immunity is not a shield against all liability, it's only a shield against hosting problematic user content.
