According to a Reuters report on April 10 local time, Meta must continue to contend with a lawsuit from Massachusetts. The state’s Supreme Court ruled that the company cannot be exempted from liability under federal law, and the case will proceed to the substantive trial stage.
The core of the case lies in a key legal issue: Internet companies can typically be exempt from liability for user-generated content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, but whether this protection applies to allegations of “platform design leading to addiction” has not yet been clearly ruled on by any state Supreme Court.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Judge Dalila Algaez-Wendland, speaking on behalf of the entire panel of judges, pointed out that the case concerns Meta’s own conduct, not the user content itself. She wrote that the allegations focus on how Meta designed its platform to exploit the vulnerability of children during their formative years or mislead the public about platform safety, thereby causing harm.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell considers the ruling a landmark. She stated that it represents a significant step in holding companies accountable for actions that “exacerbate the youth mental health crisis and prioritize profits.”
Meta responded that it disagrees with artificially separating “content” from “platform design” and emphasized that the court’s ruling did not address the facts of the case itself. The company stated that it is confident it can prove in subsequent proceedings that it has consistently supported young users.
Meta previously attempted to dismiss the case under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but the first-instance court rejected the appeal, which ultimately led to this ruling.
