Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Recognizes Section 230 Is No Bar to Social Media Design Claims

In an opinion published today in Massachusetts v. Meta, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against Meta’s overbroad Section 230 arguments, allowing the Commonwealth’s claims alleging Meta designed its platform to be addictive and misled users about the effects to proceed. This outcome was in line with what EPIC urged in an amicus brief filed on behalf of EPIC, Cybersecurity for Democracy, Tech Justice Law, and a group of scholars. It represents another important step toward holding tech giants accountable when they knowingly or recklessly harm users for profit.

This case is one of many brought against social media giants for designing their platforms in ways that they knew harmed users. Instead of defending their behavior on the merits, the companies tried to sidestep accountability by aggressively  pushing overly broad interpretations of the First Amendment and Section 230 during litigation. While they had some early success, courts have begun rejecting their legal theories and juries have found the companies to be at fault for the harms they caused.

In this case, as in many recent ones, the Court found that Section 230 does not prohibit claims alleging the companies designed their platforms harmfully and lied about their activities. Meta pushed its typical Section 230 test, claiming the law preempts any claim premised on Meta’s publishing activity. But the Court corrected Meta: Section 230 only applies to claims seeking to hold Meta liable for the harms springing directly from user-generated content they post. Meta’s design decisions, by contrast, are its own responsibility.

The Court’s opinion did not get all of the issues right. For example, it failed to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s more discerning test, which EPIC had advocated in its amicus brief. But it still struck a blow to Big Tech’s Section 230 litigation strategy, which will allow many important claims to move forward.