A Massachusetts court has ruled that Meta Platforms must face allegations that it intentionally engineered addictive features on Instagram, jeopardizing young users’ mental health while concealing the dangers. The decision allows the state’s lawsuit, led by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, to proceed, brushing aside Meta’s attempt to dismiss the claims.
Judge Peter Krupp, presiding over the case in Suffolk County Superior Court, rejected Meta’s argument that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields it from liability. The court determined that the lawsuit focuses not on third-party content but on Meta’s own business practices, including misleading statements about Instagram’s safety measures, efforts to protect young users, and the enforcement of age restrictions.
Campbell emphasized that the ruling is a pivotal step toward holding Meta accountable and pushing for meaningful reforms to safeguard young users. Meta, however, expressed disagreement, maintaining that evidence will highlight the company’s dedication to supporting youth well-being.
The case is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against Meta, as multiple states accuse the company of contributing to teenage mental health issues by designing social media platforms to be habit-forming. Earlier this week, a federal judge in California similarly denied Meta’s attempt to dismiss related lawsuits brought by over 30 states.
Massachusetts opted to pursue its claims independently in state court, adding weight to the legal battle by pointing to internal revelations about CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s reported indifference to warnings about Instagram’s impact. The lawsuit contends that features like endless scrolling, push notifications, and “like” buttons were strategically crafted to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and foster teens’ fear of missing out.
Internal data, the state claims, revealed that these features were addictive and harmful to children, yet top executives allegedly dismissed recommendations from internal research that could have mitigated the damage.
This case has now emerged as a significant front in the growing scrutiny of social media companies and their role in the mental health crisis affecting younger generations.
