Massachusetts’ highest court is reviewing a major lawsuit that could reshape how social media companies are held accountable for their impact on young people. During oral arguments, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard a case claiming that Meta Platforms deliberately designed features on Facebook and Instagram to keep teenagers hooked to the platforms.
The lawsuit, filed in 2024 by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, argues that Meta built specific tools to increase the amount of time young users spend online, primarily to drive revenue. State attorneys say this strategy affected hundreds of thousands of teenagers across Massachusetts.
The state’s legal team made it clear that the case is not about the content teenagers see, but about the design of the platforms themselves. The focus is on features that encourage repeated, prolonged use, such as notifications, endless scrolling, and other engagement-driven mechanics.
Meta Rejects the Allegations and Cites Constitutional Protections
Meta has strongly denied the claims and says it stands by its efforts to support young people who use its platforms. The company argues that the lawsuit oversteps legal boundaries by targeting actions that fall under constitutional protections, including free speech principles.
From Meta’s perspective, the lawsuit attempts to treat product features as if they were unlawful speech or editorial decisions, which the company believes is protected under the First Amendment. Meta’s legal team argues that the state is trying to regulate how platforms present and distribute lawful content, which raises serious constitutional questions.
The company has said it is confident that evidence presented in court will demonstrate its long-standing commitment to youth safety and well-being.
Court Appears More Interested in Design Tactics Than Content
Several justices signaled they were less concerned with what content appears on Meta’s platforms and more focused on how the platforms are designed to capture and hold attention.
The court’s questions centered heavily on notification systems and other behavioral design features. The judges explored the idea that constant alerts, badges, and reminders may play on common teenage anxieties, such as the fear of missing out, and may encourage compulsive checking behavior.
One of the key distinctions made in court was that the state’s argument is not about whether notifications contain misleading information. Rather, the concern is whether the structure and frequency of those notifications are intentionally built to exploit psychological vulnerabilities in young people.
The justices also questioned the idea that Meta’s actions should be viewed purely as traditional publishing decisions. Instead, they focused on whether the company’s tools are designed primarily to attract attention at all costs, regardless of the type or quality of content being delivered.
Meta Faces Growing Legal Challenges Across the United States
The Massachusetts lawsuit is not happening in isolation. Meta is currently dealing with a wave of legal actions at both state and federal levels that raise similar concerns about the impact of its products on children and teenagers.
Several lawsuits accuse the company of knowingly building features such as infinite scrolling, algorithmic content rewards, and constant push notifications to increase dependency-like behaviors among younger users.
In 2023, a group of 33 U.S. states filed a joint federal lawsuit claiming that Meta collected personal data from children under the age of 13 without proper parental consent. That case centers on alleged violations of federal children’s privacy laws.
At the same time, individual states, including Massachusetts, have filed their own lawsuits that go beyond data collection. These state-level cases concentrate specifically on the design of social media platforms and the potential mental health risks tied to excessive use.
Internal Company Research Sparked Public Outrage
Public scrutiny of Meta increased dramatically after internal company research was revealed through investigative reporting in 2021. Reports, first published by The Wall Street Journal, showed that Meta had conducted studies examining how Instagram affects teenage mental health.
The findings suggested that a portion of teenage girls reported worsening mental health after using the platform. Some participants indicated that Instagram intensified thoughts of self-harm, while others said it aggravated eating disorder-related behaviors. These revelations intensified criticism that the company had prioritized growth over user safety.
Since those disclosures, lawmakers, parents, and advocacy groups have continued to question whether Meta did enough to act on its internal research.
Whistleblower and Nonprofit Groups Raise Fresh Concerns
More recently, further criticism arose from a report involving former Meta employee and whistleblower Arturo Bejar, along with several nonprofit organizations. The report argued that Meta failed to make meaningful changes to address safety risks for young users.
According to that report, the company focused more on public-facing announcements, such as new parental control tools and specialized account types for younger users, rather than implementing deeper structural changes to its platform design.
Meta has pushed back against these claims, saying the report gave an incomplete and misleading picture of the company’s work on teen safety and mental health protections.
Decision Could Influence the Future of Social Media Regulation
Legal analysts believe the outcome of this case may have major implications for how technology companies are regulated in the future. If the court sides with Massachusetts, it could open the door for broader legal challenges that target the design of digital products rather than the content they display.
Such a shift could force social media companies to rethink how they build features that drive engagement, particularly when those features affect children and teenagers.
At the same time, technology companies argue that overly aggressive regulation could interfere with free expression and innovation, potentially creating legal uncertainty across the industry.
