Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Mass. high court hears challenge to Instagram design claims as Section 230 and First Amendment defenses collide
Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Meta Platforms over whether Section 230 bars the state’s claims that Instagram design features (notifications, autoplay, infinite scroll, ephemeral posts) cause teen addiction, and whether Section 230 creates immunity from suit or only protection from liability.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard oral argument on a challenge by the Commonwealth against Meta Platforms alleging that Instagram design choices cause teens to use the app excessively and that state law can address those features.
At argument, Meta counsel Attorney Munoz told the court, "This lawsuit would impose liability on Meta for performing traditional publishing functions. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment prevent that result." Munoz urged the court to treat push notifications, ephemeral stories and presentation choices as ways the platform publishes third‑party content to users and therefore barred by Section 230.
The Commonwealth, represented by David Kravitz, responded that Section 230 provides protection from liability for certain third‑party content but does not create an automatic immunity from suit. "Section…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
