The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up Meta Platforms' appeal of a lawsuit brought by Vermont's attorney general alleging that Instagram was intentionally designed to foster addiction among young users.
By refusing Meta's petition, the justices left in place a lower court ruling that cleared the way for the case to continue in Vermont state court. Meta had sought to block the state case on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that Vermont courts do not have authority over the matter.
The suit was filed by Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark in 2023 under the state's consumer protection statute. According to the complaint, Vermont prosecutors contend Instagram was created to exploit neurological, cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities in teenagers so as to encourage compulsive and excessive use of the app. The complaint further claims that those design choices were used to boost advertising revenue, including ads aimed at Vermont markets and teens, and that Meta misled consumers about Instagram's safety.
Meta countered in its filings that Vermont did not allege the app itself or specific Instagram features were developed in Vermont, nor that any alleged misrepresentations regarding the platform's safety or addictiveness were made within the state. The company has maintained those jurisdictional and factual limits as part of its defense.
Separately, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in February at a youth social media addiction trial in California, where he denied that Instagram targets children. That testimony was part of other litigation taking place in a different court and was referenced in the broader context of legal scrutiny of platform practices.
The Vermont lawsuit asserts that Instagram's product design relied on studies of teen brain development and behavioral vulnerabilities to promote repeated and prolonged engagement, resulting in harms to mental health. The case is one of a number of legal actions across the United States brought by individuals, municipalities, states and school districts that are examining how social media companies designed and ran their platforms and whether those designs harmed young users.
Context and next steps
With the Supreme Court's decision not to intervene, the Vermont action will proceed in state court under the state's consumer protection law. The refusal to hear the appeal does not resolve the substantive claims in the complaint; it preserves the lower court's determination that the case may continue in Vermont.
Because the suit remains active, the litigation will continue to move through the state-court process unless the parties reach a settlement or another procedural ruling changes the case's course.