Massachusetts’ highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state’s lawsuit alleging that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to keep young users engaged, a strategy the state says made profits for the company and affected teenagers in Massachusetts. The case was brought in 2023 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
State Solicitor David Kravitz argued the state is basing its claims on “the tools that Meta has developed,” saying Meta’s own research shows those tools “encourage addiction to the platform in a variety of ways.” Kravitz added in court that the state’s claim “has nothing to do with the company’s algorithms or failure to moderate content,” according to the Associated Press account of the argument.
Meta disputed the allegations and said it “strongly disagrees” with the lawsuit. In court, Meta’s attorney, Mark Mosier, argued the litigation would force the company to face consequences for performing functions that he described as protected “traditional publishing functions,” and he said the action is safeguarded by the First Amendment.
Mosier told the court that the state’s argument would be easier to fit under constitutional limits if prosecutors had alleged “that the speech was false or fraudulent,” and he said that “when they acknowledge that its truthful that brings it in the heart of the First Amendment.” Several judges then focused on how Meta’s product design works, with particular attention to notifications and the mechanics that can keep users coming back.
Justice Dalila Wendlandt said she understood the state’s claim not as one about Meta relaying false information through notifications, but as one about design choices—saying Meta had “created an algorithm of incessant notifications” meant to feed “fear of missing out, fomo, that teenagers generally have.” Justice Scott Kafker also challenged a framing he viewed as turning on publishing decisions, saying: “It’s not how to publish but how to attract you to the information” and adding that the focus is on “getting you to look at it.”
The broader context for the Massachusetts case includes other state and federal litigation in which plaintiffs have alleged that Meta knowingly designed features—including constant notifications and endless scrolling—to addict children. In 2023, 33 states filed a joint lawsuit against Meta claiming the company collects data on children under 13 without parents’ consent, in violation of federal law, and other states, including Massachusetts, have brought separate lawsuits in state court tied to alleged harms to children.
The Massachusetts complaint also draws on reporting and prior disclosures about internal research on teen mental health. The AP account said that newspaper reports, including a 2021 report by The Wall Street Journal, found that Meta knew the harms Instagram can have for teenagers, “especially teen girls,” related to mental health and body image, citing internal studies that suggested some teen girls said Instagram worsened thoughts of suicide and eating-disorder symptoms.
Critics have said Meta has not done enough to address safety and mental health risks for teens. A report this year from former employee and whistleblower Arturo Bejar and four nonprofit groups said Meta chose not to take “real steps” to address safety concerns, describing the company’s approach as “opting instead for splashy headlines about new tools for parents and Instagram Teen Accounts for underage users,” and Meta said Friday that it misrepresented its efforts on teen safety.
The court did not issue a decision during the arguments session.