This marks the first such case to reach a state supreme court, potentially setting influential precedents for over 2,000 similar suits nationwide consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in California’s Northern District.
Meta appealed a Suffolk Superior Court ruling from October 2024 that denied its motion to dismiss, arguing the claims fall outside federal immunity protections.
The stakes are enormous: Successful claims could expose Meta to billions in damages for fueling a youth mental health crisis, while a win for the company would reinforce Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as a shield against design-based liability.
A ruling is expected in early 2026, amid a wave of similar appellate fights in states like Nevada (TikTok case) and Maryland (nuisance claims viability).
Case Background: From Trial Court to High Court
- The Lawsuit (Filed October 2023): Massachusetts sued Meta under the state’s Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A), claiming Instagram’s features—like infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, push notifications, and ephemeral content (e.g., Stories)—exploit adolescent brain vulnerabilities to maximize engagement and profits, leading to addiction, anxiety, depression, and even suicidality.
The suit cites Meta’s internal research (e.g., the 2021 “Facebook Files” leaks) showing awareness of these harms but prioritizing growth.
fortune.com - Trial Court Win for the State: In October 2024, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Michael D. Ricciuti rejected Meta’s dismissal bid, ruling the claims target the company’s own conduct (product design) rather than user-generated content, thus bypassing Section 230 immunity.
law.com
He also allowed “unfairness” and public nuisance theories to proceed, framing Instagram as a defective product akin to tobacco or gambling devices.
reason.com - Meta’s Appeal: Filed November 2024, Meta argues the suit is a disguised content-moderation attack, protected by Section 230 and the First Amendment. It claims all Instagram activity involves “information provided by another” (users), making the platform untouchable.
news.bloomberglaw.com
Amicus briefs from free-speech advocates (e.g., Eugene Volokh) echo this, warning of chilled innovation if platforms face tort liability for user speech facilitation.
reason.com
Key Arguments in Oral ArgumentsDuring the December 5 hearing, justices probed both sides on technical details—some admitting limited personal familiarity with Instagram—highlighting the case’s novelty.
Highlights:
- State’s Pitch: Solicitor David Kravitz emphasized “tools” like notifications fueling “FOMO” (fear of missing out), not content or algorithms. He argued Meta’s designs create a “public nuisance” by overwhelming the state’s mental health resources, affecting ~500,000 teen users.
fortune.com
Justice Dalila Wendlandt clarified: “It’s not false info, but incessant notifications designed for teen psychology.”
fortune.com - Meta’s Defense: The company likened Instagram to a “digital town square,” arguing liability would force monitoring all user interactions—precisely what Section 230 prohibits.
news.bloomberglaw.com
It invoked First Amendment protections for “expressive” design choices, comparing them to TV shows or magazines.
reason.com - Bipartisan Amici: Briefs from 29 other states support Massachusetts, while tech groups and Nevada AG back Meta.
sokolovelaw.com
Experts note the ruling could sway federal MDL outcomes, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has allowed nuanced claims (e.g., filters vs. geolocation) to proceed.
news.bloomberglaw.com
|
Core Claims
|
State’s Argument
|
Meta’s Counter
|
|---|---|---|
|
Addictive Design
|
Features like endless scrolls/autoplay exploit dopamine loops, per Meta’s own studies; akin to Big Tobacco.
|
Design is neutral facilitation of speech; no “defect” without user content.
|
|
Section 230 Immunity
|
Targets Meta’s independent actions (e.g., notification timing), not third-party posts.
|
All features enable user info flow; suit would eviscerate CDA protections.
|
|
Public Nuisance
|
Platforms create statewide harm (e.g., rising teen ER visits for self-harm).
|
Overbroad; can’t sue for societal issues without direct causation.
|
|
Consumer Protection
|
Misled users on safety; “unfair” under MA law if risks outweigh benefits.
|
Protected opinion/speech; no deception proven.
|
Broader Landscape: A National OnslaughtThis Massachusetts case is the latest in a torrent of litigation:
- Federal MDL (No. 3047): Over 2,172 cases against Meta, TikTok, Snap, Google, etc., alleging defective products causing addiction.
Bellwether trials eyed for mid-2026.
- Other States: Nevada Supreme Court (Nov 2025) greenlit TikTok suit; Maryland SJC reviewing nuisance viability; NC appealing TikTok jurisdiction.
- 41-State AG Suit: Filed 2023 vs. Meta for COPPA violations and addictive features; ongoing in CA federal court.
sokolovelaw.com
- School Districts & Tribes: Suits from places like Harford County, MD, and White Mountain Apache Tribe seek damages for intervention costs.
Plaintiffs avoid content-based claims (barred by Section 230) to focus on “machine over message”—e.g., streaks on Snapchat or TikTok’s For You page—drawing parallels to opioids or vaping litigation.
Bipartisan support underscores it’s not partisan: Red and blue states alike cite Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s 2023 advisory on social media risks.
Reactions and X BuzzLegal circles are abuzz: Bloomberg Law called it a “pivotal test” for Meta’s defenses.
Critics decry “nanny state” overreach; supporters hail it as overdue accountability.What’s Next?The SJC’s decision could unify or fracture the patchwork of rulings, influencing settlements (Meta has hinted at talks) or trials. If you’re affected (e.g., a minor harmed by Instagram use), consult firms handling MDL cases—statutes vary, but many extend for minors. Track updates via the MDL docket or AG Campbell’s office. This front in Big Tech’s war on addiction could redefine digital responsibility.