Yesterday, TechFreedom filed an amicus brief urging the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to block a Massachusetts lawsuit that attacks Meta’s social-media design features. The state contends that Meta’s platforms are “addictive.” This emotionally charged claim amounts, at bottom, to an attack on the speech rights of the many ordinary people who speak their minds, and receive information from others, on these platforms. TechFreedom’s brief explains that Massachusetts’s suit is barred by Section 230.

“Section 230 protects technological innovation, whether Massachusetts likes it or not,” said Corbin K. Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation at TechFreedom. “The law explicitly seeks to ‘promote the continued development of the Internet.’ This is the lens through which to understand Section 230’s protection of websites from liability for exercising the traditional editorial functions of a publisher—preparing, arranging, and distributing third-party content. The features Massachusetts attacks—such as autoplay, infinite scroll, and notifications—are nothing more than digital methods of making editorial choices about how to display user-generated material.”

“For all its talk of ‘product design,’ Massachusetts just wants to play censor,” Barthold continued. “There is no coherent way to separate the act of publishing content from the choices involved in presenting it. Infinite scroll, autoplay, and notifications have no meaning apart from the user-generated content they deliver. Section 230 draws no line between traditional editorial devices, such as headlines or chapter breaks, and their digital counterparts. If Massachusetts had aimed its lawsuit at newspapers, its censorial intent would be obvious.”

“What Massachusetts objects to, in the end, is speech itself,” Barthold concluded. “Minors spend time on social media because, when they’re there, they see speech they’re interested in seeing. Massachusetts is concerned that the speech is too powerful. This problem, however—if it’s a problem—is not for Massachusetts to fix. Under the First Amendment, the strong effects of speech are an inherent part of speech—not a ground for regulation.”

The case is Commonwealth v. Meta, No. SJC-13747 (Mass. S.J.C.). TechFreedom is grateful for the pro bono assistance of Dave Geiger, a partner at Foley Hoag LLP.

###

Find this brief and release on our website, and share it on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom:

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

</>