Massachusetts Top Court Allows Youth Addiction Lawsuit Against Meta to Move Forward

Massachusetts’s highest court has allowed the state attorney general’s social media addiction lawsuit against Meta to move forward.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on April 10 that the case brought by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell can proceed. The lawsuit alleges that Meta harmed young users through the design of Instagram and misled consumers about the platform’s safety.

Social media companies have often avoided litigation over alleged harms tied to their platforms by invoking Section 230, a federal law that broadly shields technology companies from liability for user-generated content.

Meta argued that it was entitled to immunity under Section 230. But a unanimous court found that Meta had not shown, at least at this stage of the case, that it was “entitled to the protection” of the law.

“The fact that a claim concerns publishing activities, including the use of algorithms in connection with publishing activities, is not enough to bring the claim within the immunity provided” by Section 230, Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt wrote for the court.

The court also said Campbell’s claims that Meta deceived consumers by portraying Instagram as “safe and nonaddictive” and by presenting itself as prioritizing youth well-being fall outside Section 230 because those claims are based on Meta’s own statements rather than third-party content.

The same was true, the court said, of unfair business practices claims that were centered on allegations that Meta’s age-verification measures are ineffective.

“Here, the Commonwealth asserts that the defective age verification features give rise to heightened harm to underage users who are particularly vulnerable to the design features challenged,” the opinion reads. “The Commonwealth does not allege harm stemming from the content of any information published.”

The lawsuit, filed in October 2023, alleges that Instagram features such as push notifications, “likes,” and endless scrolling were designed to exploit for profit teenagers’ psychological vulnerabilities and fear of missing out.

According to the complaint, internal company data showed that the platform was addictive and harmful to children, yet top executives declined to adopt changes that company research indicated could improve teens’ well-being.

The case is one of dozens brought by states and private individuals across the country alleging harm from social media and artificial intelligence platforms. It also comes on the heels of two major jury verdicts against Meta tied to harms suffered by children and teens online.

In California, a jury found Meta and Google’s YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their platforms and ordered the companies to pay a combined $6 million to the plaintiffs. As in the Massachusetts case, the California lawsuit focused on platform design and operation rather than user-generated content.

A day earlier, a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for compromising children’s safety online and violating the state’s Unfair Practices Act, which bars unfair, deceptive, and misleading business practices. The jury awarded $375 million in damages.

Meta rejected the design-based theory of liability. A company spokesperson said Meta continues to disagree with what it called the “false distinction” between content and platform design, and it noted that the Massachusetts ruling did not address the merits of the case.

“We are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” the spokesperson said.