BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts’ highest court heard oral arguments on Friday regarding a lawsuit claiming that Meta designed addictive features within Facebook and Instagram specifically targeting young users.
The suit, launched in 2023 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, alleges that Meta's design choices for these platforms are driven by profitability, impacting hundreds of thousands of teenagers in the state.
“Our claims rely solely on the tools Meta has developed, which their own research indicates promote addiction in various ways,” stated State Solicitor David Kravitz. He emphasized that the state’s lawsuit does not touch upon Meta’s algorithms or content moderation issues.
Meta has publicly contested these allegations, arguing they are unfounded. Their attorney, Mark Mosier, cited free speech protections, asserting that the lawsuit seeks to impose liabilities for standard publishing practices.
“The Commonwealth would have a better chance of resolving First Amendment concerns if they alleged falsehood or fraud,” asserted Mosier. “Acknowledging the truth of our content brings it into the heart of the First Amendment.”
Several judges expressed concerns regarding Meta’s operational features, including notifications, rather than focusing solely on the platform’s content.
Justice Dalila Wendlandt noted, “The claims suggest that Meta's algorithms are designed to induce continuous notifications, feeding into teenagers’ fear of missing out (FOMO).”
With ongoing federal and state lawsuits against Meta, the scrutiny of their platform design persists, especially as documentation reveals that the company is aware of the potential harm Instagram poses to teenagers, particularly regarding mental health issues.
Critics argue that Meta has not taken adequate measures to safeguard young users. A report from whistleblower Arturo Bejar and several nonprofit organizations stated that Meta has avoided implementing effective safety measures, opting instead for superficial marketing surrounding tools for parents and teen accounts.
Meta contests this assessment, maintaining that it misrepresents their efforts in promoting teen safety.
