US EditionPublished • loading... • Updated
Massachusetts court hears arguments in lawsuit alleging Meta designed apps to be addictive to kids
The lawsuit claims Meta used features like endless scrolling to addict hundreds of thousands of teens for profit, based on internal research and whistleblower reports.
- On Friday, Massachusetts' highest court heard oral arguments in a 2024 lawsuit by Andrea Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, alleging Meta designed Facebook and Instagram features to addict hundreds of thousands of state teenagers.
- State Solicitor David Kravitz said the claim rests on tools Meta developed and its own research showing those tools encourage addictive use, not on algorithms or moderation.
- Meta said Friday that it strongly disagrees and is `confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people`, while attorney Mark Mosier argued the lawsuit is protected by the First Amendment as traditional publishing functions.
- If the suit succeeds, it could change Meta's legal liabilities and design practices, affecting hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts teenagers and raising concerns from teen-safety advocates.
- Part of a broader wave of lawsuits, states including Massachusetts have pursued state-court suits over addictive features while a 2023 joint federal suit by 33 states accused Meta of data collection on children under 13.
Insights by Ground AI
33 Articles
33 Articles
Associated Press News+31 Reposted by 31 other sources
Massachusetts court hears arguments in lawsuit alleging Meta designed apps to be addictive to kids
Massachusetts’ highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state’s lawsuit arguing that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make them addictive to young users.
·United States
Read Full Article
In a lawsuit against Meta, the state’s highest court will rule on the limits of Section 230
Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Photo (cc) 2022 by Dan Kennedy. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects website owners from liability over third-party content. The classic example would be an anonymous commenter who libels someone. The offended party would be able to sue the commenter but not the publishing platform, although the platform might be required to turn over information that would help identify the commenter. …
Coverage Details
Total News Sources33
Leaning Left10Leaning Right5Center11Last UpdatedBias Distribution42% Center
Bias Distribution
- 42% of the sources are Center
42% Center
L 39%
C 42%
R 19%
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
