Judge Rules Meta Must Face Youth Addiction Lawsuit

A judge has rejected Meta’s request to dismiss a lawsuit that was brought by the Massachusetts Attorney General that claimed Meta violated laws related to consumer protection.

The Commonwealth raised the lawsuit in November 2023, claiming Meta breached the law by “designing and using addictive design features on Instagram to exploit children’s psychological vulnerabilities and falsely represented to the public that its features were not addictive and that Meta prioritized youth health and safety.”

Meta requested to dismiss the charges, arguing it was protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment, and claimed the state failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support its claims.

Section 230 essentially states that platforms are not accountable for content posted by third parties. However, in several recent rulings, Judges have stated that the algorithms and behaviors of the platforms themselves are not protected under this clause.

In this specific case, Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp in Boston said in his ruling that “the immunity available under Section 230(c)(1) is not absolute” and that “Section 230 does not apply to claims based on a defendant’s own speech.” In particular, he is referring to Meta’s assertions on how it protects youth and how its features work.

The ruling states that Instagram’s tools, like incessant notifications, infinite scroll, and auto-play features, along with its current age verification efforts, are not protected under Section 230. It clarifies that the claims focus “not on Instagram’s third-party content, but on its features regardless of content.”

The judge ruled “that Meta is not entitled to dismissal under Section 230.” The ruling also states that the First Amendment does not protect Meta in this case because the claim focuses “principally on conduct and product design, not on expressive content.”

Regarding Meta’s argument that the Commonwealth failed to provide sufficient facts related to its claim, the Judge deemed that the “arguments are unpersuasive.”

Earlier this year, TikTok was also refused a dismissal and must face a lawsuit related to a teen’s death. Her mother claims it was a direct result of TikTok’s algorithm and its failure to protect its young users.