Social media giant Meta is navigating a complex and escalating global regulatory landscape, with its core platforms, Facebook and Instagram, at the center of two major developments. In the United States, the company is defending itself in a high-stakes lawsuit that accuses it of deliberately designing addictive features for young users. Simultaneously, on the other side of the world, Australia is poised to implement a groundbreaking nationwide ban on social media for users under 16, a policy that directly targets Meta's operations and user base. These parallel events highlight a growing international consensus on the need to regulate digital platforms to protect younger audiences, putting immense pressure on one of the world's most influential tech companies.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Landmark Youth Addiction Case
The highest court in Massachusetts recently heard oral arguments in a pivotal lawsuit filed by the state's Attorney General, Andrea Campbell, in 2024. The core allegation is that Meta knowingly engineered features on Facebook and Instagram to foster addiction among young users, prioritizing profit over user well-being. State Solicitor David Kravitz argued that the claim is based on Meta's own internal tools and research, which allegedly demonstrate how the platforms encourage compulsive use. Crucially, the state's argument sidesteps content moderation, focusing instead on the design of the platforms themselves—features like incessant notifications and infinite scroll that are engineered to capture and hold attention.
Meta's Defense Invokes First Amendment Protections for Platform Design
In its defense, Meta strongly disagrees with the allegations, asserting a "longstanding commitment to supporting young people." The company's attorney, Mark Mosier, presented a constitutional argument, claiming the lawsuit seeks to impose liability for "performing traditional publishing functions" protected by the First Amendment. He contended that because the state acknowledges the notifications and features involve truthful information, the case falls squarely under free speech protections. This defense frames Meta's platform mechanics not as manipulative design, but as a form of protected speech and publication.
Judges Probe the Distinction Between Content and Compulsive Design
Several justices appeared skeptical of Meta's broad First Amendment defense, focusing their questions on the nature of the platform's design rather than its content. Justice Dalila Wendland clarified that the claim centers on an "algorithm of incessant notifications" designed to exploit teenage psychology, particularly the "fear of missing out" (FOMO). Justice Scott Kafker further challenged the notion, arguing the case is not about what information is published, but how users are attracted to it. He suggested the design is "indifferent to content," focused solely on capturing "eyeballs," whether the material is substantive or trivial. This judicial line of questioning suggests a potential legal pathway for holding platforms accountable for addictive user interface designs, separate from content-based regulation.
Australia Implements World-First Social Media Ban for Under-16s
As the legal debate continues in Massachusetts, Australia is enacting one of the world's most aggressive regulatory measures. Effective December 10, 2025, new laws require major social media platforms to block or deactivate all accounts held by users under 16 and prevent new underage sign-ups. The policy applies to a wide range of platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X (Twitter), YouTube, and others. Companies that fail to take "reasonable steps" to comply face severe penalties of up to AUD 49.5 million (approximately USD 32.8 million) from Australia's eSafety Commissioner.
Key Platforms Under Australia's Social Media Ban (Effective Dec 10, 2025):
- TikTok
- Snapchat
- X (Twitter)
- YouTube
- Twitch
- Kick
- Threads (Note: This list is not final; other apps like Discord or Lemon8 may be added later.)
Enforcement Will Be Gradual as Platforms Scramble to Comply
Despite the official start date, officials have acknowledged that full and immediate enforcement is not feasible. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant stated that underage accounts will not "magically disappear" overnight and that rollout will be staggered, initially focusing on platforms with the largest teen user bases. Compliance methods vary: Snapchat plans to use behavioral signals, while TikTok and others are implementing layered systems involving facial age estimation and credit card verification. Meta has begun locking out underage users but has been reticent about its specific methods, citing concerns about circumvention. While platforms like X and Reddit have not publicly commented, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to the policy despite recommendations for delay and an ongoing High Court challenge.
Broader Legal Context and Internal Revelations Undermine Meta's Position
The Massachusetts case is not an isolated event. Meta faces a multitude of federal and state lawsuits in the U.S. making similar claims about addictive features harming children. Furthermore, internal company documents, first reported by The Wall Street Journal in 2021, revealed Meta's own research indicated Instagram worsened mental health, suicidal thoughts, and eating disorders among teen girls. A recent report from whistleblower Arturo Bejar and nonprofit groups accused Meta of opting for "splashy headlines" about new tools rather than taking "real steps" to address safety concerns. These revelations provide a powerful backdrop to the legal arguments, suggesting the company was aware of potential harms linked to its platform designs.
Reported Findings from Meta's Internal Research (per The Wall Street Journal, 2021):
- 13.5% of teen girls said Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse.
- 17% of teen girls said Instagram makes eating disorders worse.
A Defining Moment for Social Media Regulation and Corporate Accountability
The concurrent legal and regulatory actions in Massachusetts and Australia represent a critical inflection point. Regulators and courts are increasingly attempting to dissect and regulate the underlying architecture of social media—the hooks, notifications, and algorithms that drive engagement—rather than just the content that flows through them. For Meta, the outcomes will have profound implications. A loss in Massachusetts could open the floodgates to similar design-based lawsuits across the United States. Australia's ban, whether fully successful or not, sets a bold precedent that other nations may follow. Together, these developments signal that the era of self-regulation for major tech platforms is closing, replaced by a new frontier of legal accountability focused on digital well-being and the protection of young users.