Consumer protection – Instagram – Communications Decency Act

Listen to this article

Where the commonwealth filed a complaint alleging that the defendant, which owns and operates the social media platform Instagram, engaged in unfair business practices by inducing compulsive use by children, engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately misleading the public about the safety of the platform, and created a public nuisance by engaging in those unfair and deceptive practices, the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be affirmed because the defendant has not shown it is entitled to the protection provided by §230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

“The Commonwealth alleges that Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram, LLC (collectively, Meta), engaged in unfair business practices by designing the Instagram platform to induce compulsive use by children, engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately misleading the public about the safety of the platform, and created a public nuisance by engaging in these unfair and deceptive practices. Meta moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, inter alia, that §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. §230 (§230), barred the claims. A Superior Court judge denied the motion, and Meta appealed.

“This case first presents the question whether the doctrine of present execution permits an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court judge’s order denying a motion to dismiss based on a defense under §230. Concluding that it does, we reach the question whether §230 bars the Commonwealth’s claims. We conclude that it does not.

“Section 230(c)(1) protects an interactive computer service provider, such as Meta, against claims that ‘treat[] [it] as the publisher … of any information provided by’ someone other than Meta. 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1). Consistent with the text of the statute, common-law principles of publisher liability, and legislative purpose, we determine that §230(c)(1) protects an interactive computer service provider against claims that seek to hold it liable for harms stemming from user-generated content it published. Here, accepting as true the allegations of the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the Commonwealth’s favor, the claims do not seek to impose liability on Meta for information provided by third parties. Instead, the claims allege harm stemming from Meta’s own conduct either by designing a social media platform that capitalizes on the developmental vulnerabilities of children or by affirmatively misleading consumers about the safety of the Instagram platform. Thus, at least at this preliminary stage of the litigation, Meta has not shown it is entitled to the protection provided by §230(c)(1). …

“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Meta’s appeal from the order denying the motion to dismiss insofar as it concerns immunity pursuant to §230(c)(1) is properly before us under the doctrine of present execution, and we affirm the Superior Court’s order as it pertains to §230(c)(1).”

Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-036-26) (50 pages) (Wendlandt, J.) A motion to dismiss was heard by Peter B. Krupp, J., in Superior Court. Mark W. Mosier, of the District of Columbia (Kendall Burchard, of the District of Columbia, and Felicia H. Ellsworth also present) for the defendants; David C. Kravitz (Christina Chan and Jared Rinehimer also present) for the commonwealth; the following submitted briefs for amici curiae: David R. Geiger for TechFreedom; Zac Morgan, of the District of Columbia, and Douglas S. Brooks for Washington Legal Foundation; Jay M. Wolman for International Center for Law & Economics; Rob Bonta, Nicklas A. Akers, Bernard A. Eskandari, Megan M. O’Neill, Marissa Roy, Philip J. Weiser, Shannon Stevenson, Krista Batchelder, Danny Rheiner, Kris Mayes, Reagan Healey, William Tong, Kathleen Jennings, Marion M. Quirk, Ryan T. Costa, Brian L. Schwalb, Anne E. Lopez, Theodore E. Rokita, Russell Coleman, Aaron M. Frey, Anthony G. Brown, Philip D. Ziperman, Elizabeth J. Stern, Keith Ellison, Evan Romanoff, Michael T. Hilgers, John M. Formella, Brandon H. Garod, Matthew J. Platkin, Letitia James, David W. Sunday Jr., Jonathan R. Burns, Lourdes Gómez Torres, Peter F. Neronha, Alan Wilson, Jared Q. Libet, Marty J. Jackley, Amanda Miiller, Charity R. Clark, Nicholas W. Brown, John B. McCuskey, Laurel K. Lackey, Abby G. Cunningham and Josh Kaul for California attorney general and others; Steven P. Lehotsky for NetChoice and another; Caitriona Fitzgerald for Electronic Privacy Information Center and others; Ari Z. Cohn, of Illinois, and John G. Mateus for Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; Jay M. Wolman for Jane Bambauer and another; Blake C. Stacey, pro se (Docket No. SJC-13747) (April 10, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.