The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled unanimously on April 10, 2026, that Meta must face a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell accusing the company of deliberately designing Instagram to addict children and teens.[1] The court rejected Meta's attempt to dismiss the case based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, marking the first time a state supreme court has ruled that federal internet immunity law does not protect companies from youth-addiction claims targeting platform design rather than user-generated content.[1][2]
Key Players & Claims
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is pursuing the lawsuit, alleging Meta engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by designing Instagram features—including infinite scrolling, push notifications, autoplay videos, disappearing content, and "likes"—that exploit children's developing brains and trigger dopamine responses.[1] The state alleges Meta's internal data showed the platform was addictive and harmful, yet executives rejected proposed safety improvements to prioritize ad revenue.[1] Meta denies the allegations, claiming the distinction between content and platform design is "false" and reaffirming its commitment to supporting young people.[1][2]
Context & Significance
This ruling follows a pattern of recent litigation losses for Meta: two weeks prior, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for misleading users about safety and enabling child exploitation, and a California jury on March 25 found Meta and Google liable for depression and suicidal thoughts in a young woman, awarding $6 million in combined damages.[2][6] More than 30 other states have filed similar federal complaints against Meta and other platforms.[1] The Massachusetts decision is significant because it establishes that Section 230 protects only user-generated content and deceptive business practices, not product design choices—a distinction that could strengthen arguments against social media companies nationwide.[1][5]