The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard oral argument on a challenge by the Commonwealth against Meta Platforms alleging that Instagram design choices cause teens to use the app excessively and that state law can address those features.

At argument, Meta counsel Attorney Munoz told the court, "This lawsuit would impose liability on Meta for performing traditional publishing functions. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment prevent that result." Munoz urged the court to treat push notifications, ephemeral stories and presentation choices as ways the platform publishes third‑party content to users and therefore barred by Section 230.

The Commonwealth, represented by David Kravitz, responded that Section 230 provides protection from liability for certain third‑party content but does not create an automatic immunity from suit. "Section 230 confers a limited immunity from liability, but it does not confer immunity from suit," Kravitz told the court and emphasized legislative history and prior decisions that, in his view, do not support an interlocutory appeal here.

The justices focused on two legal questions: whether the Commonwealth’s asserted harms depend on third‑party content (which would likely activate Section 230 defenses) and whether certain design choices are properly characterized as publishing decisions or as non‑editorial conduct. Counsel and the court debated whether a notification that relays user activity ("Taylor Swift liked your post," in Munoz’s hypothetical) is content created by a third party and therefore protected, or instead is a corporate decision about how to convey information that could be regulated.

Munoz argued that features such as ephemeral "stories" (removed after 24 hours), autoplay of videos, and infinite scroll are publishing functions because they decide how and when third‑party material is presented. Meta relied on circuit precedent cited in argument (including decisions referenced in the briefs and during oral argument) to say notifications that facilitate user‑to‑user communication fall within Section 230’s protection. Kravitz countered that the Commonwealth’s claims target Meta’s own design and conduct rather than the substance of third‑party posts and that Congress did not plainly intend to bar all suits or foreclose interlocutory review.

The court also discussed whether the case should be decided now under the present‑execution (interlocutory) doctrine or left to be resolved later in the ordinary course of litigation. Counsel debated precedent and statutory text, and justices pointed to cases they found helpful or problematic for each side: references during argument included Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Supreme Court’s video‑games precedent (referred to during argument as "Brown"), and appellate opinions characterized in the record as bearing on the publishing/moderating distinction.

No ruling was announced from the bench. The case centers on whether the state's requested remedies altering platform design would amount to treating Meta as a publisher of third‑party content (thus covered by Section 230) or instead address a company’s independent conduct and design choices. The court's eventual decision will affect how far states can pursue claims premised on technology design and user engagement and whether Section 230 bars such claims at an early interlocutory stage.

The court took arguments from both sides and reserved decision; no vote or order was issued at the hearing's close.