They didn't, they punted on their 230 case. The Twitter case they decided on the grounds that Twitter didn't "aid and abet" under the meaning of the specific an

They didn't, they punted on their 230 case. The Twitter case they decided on the grounds that Twitter didn't "aid and abet" under the meaning of the specific antiterrorism statute at issue, and the Google case they sent back down without deciding anything on 230. It's certainly better for section 230 than an overturn, but they didn't uphold it either.