A Massachusetts high court ruled Friday that the state attorney general’s social media addiction case against Meta Platforms can move forward.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the case can proceed as Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell’s (D) case targets Meta’s alleged conduct in designing a social media platform, rather than the content posted by third-party users.
Social media platforms have largely been able to avoid litigation related to their platforms because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies from being held legally responsible for third-party or user content.
Meta asked the state’s high court to dismiss the suit given Section 230, but Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt, writing for the unanimous court, said at least at this stage, the tech firm did not show it is “entitled to the protection” provided by Section 230.
Campbell’s lawsuit is alleging harm from Meta’s conduct — specifically how the tech firm designed its Instagram platform and allegedly misled consumers about the safety of it.
The case is one of dozens filed by state leaders or private plaintiffs across the country alleging harm from different social media or artificial intelligence platforms.
It comes on the heels of two major jury verdicts against Meta, which was found liable for its platforms’ impact on kids and teens online. Like Campbell’s case, the case in California also focused on the design and operation features rather than the content itself.
Lawyers watching the case closely predicted the verdicts in California and New Mexico would pave the way for similar legislation targeting the design and conduct of these platforms. The two verdicts marked the first time juries found the social media platforms — Meta and Google’s YouTube — liable for their influence of kids and teens.
In California, a jury determined Meta and YouTube were negligent in their design or operation of the platforms and ordered the companies to pay a combined $6 million to plaintiffs.
A day earlier, a jury in New Mexico found Meta liable for compromising children’s safety online and violating the state’s Unfair Practices Act, which prohibits unfair, deceptive and misleading business ventures across the state. The jury awarded $375 million in damages.
Meta has pushed back on this argument around design, with a spokesperson telling The Hill Friday that the company continues “to disagree with the false distinction between content and platform design.”
“This ruling is procedural and doesn’t address the merits of the case,” the spokesperson continued. “We are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”
The spokesperson emphasized the company has worked with parents, experts and law enforcement to conduct research and roll out new tools to boost kids safety and is “proud of the progress we’ve made” and “always working to do better.”
Campbell celebrated the court ruling Friday, calling it a “victory.”
“Meta tried to get our lawsuit against them for fueling the youth mental health crisis thrown out, but unfortunately for them, the courts just ruled that the case will continue,” she wrote on Bluesky. “As your AG, and as a mom, I’ll always fight to demand accountability from big tech and safer spaces online.”
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
