Vermont Judge Denies Meta’s Dismissal Request in Addiction Lawsuit

Communications Decency Act Section 230 arguments didn't persuade her. Vermont alleges Meta violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act by intentionally seeking to addict young users through methods it knows are harmful to mental and physical health. The company misrepresented its intentions and the harm it’s “knowingly causing,” the state argued. Vermont is seeking injunctive relief and civil damages. In Meta's request for dismissal, it argued the state lacks jurisdiction, the First Amendment and Section 230 bar the claims, and state enforcers failed to offer a valid claim under state law. The court heard oral argument July 3. The state noted more than 40,000 Vermont teens use Instagram and about 30,000 do so daily. The company uses targeted advertising and other features to maximize the amount of time teens spend on the app. Toor said the First Amendment protects companies' speech, but it doesn’t protect against allegations that a company is manipulating younger users. She noted Section 230 protects a company against liability for hosting third-party content, but it doesn’t shield from liability when a company engages in illegal conduct. Vermont isn’t seeking to hold Meta liable for content it hosts, she said: “Instead, it seeks to hold the company liable for intentionally leading Young Users to spend too much time on-line. Whether they are watching porn or puppies, the claim is that they are harmed by the time spent, not by what they are seeing.” Attorney General Charity Clark filed the lawsuit in October.