• by Wendy Davis , 8 hours ago

The tech group NetChoice is backing Meta Platforms' request that the Supreme Court intervene in a lawsuit brought against the company by Vermont's attorney general, who claims the social platform violated a consumer-protection law by allegedly designing Instagram to addict young users.

Last year, Vermont's highest court rejected Meta's argument that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the state lacks jurisdiction over these claims.

Meta recently petitioned the Supreme Court to review that ruling. The company argues that it doesn't have a physical presence or employees in Vermont, and isn't alleged to have designed Instagram to function differently in Vermont than in other states.

NetChoice -- which represents large tech companies -- adds in a friend-of-the-court brief filed this week that the state ruling will result in "immediate and severe consequences for the internet economy" unless it is overturned.

The battle dates to 2023, when Vermont sued Meta for allegedly designing features that "cause teens to use Instagram compulsively and excessively."

Dozens of other states made similar allegations in separate lawsuits against the company.

Meta is also facing multiple lawsuits in federal and state courts in California -- including by teens and their families.

The company sought an early dismissal of the Vermont lawsuit, arguing that it lacked the kinds of ties to the state that subject it to jurisdiction there.

Vermont's Supreme Court rejected that argument last year, opining that Instagram has teen users in Vermont, and sells advertising to Vermont businesses that target users in the state.

"Meta has purposefully availed itself of the Vermont social-media and advertising market," Justice Karen Russell Carroll wrote in a June ruling.

Carroll added that Meta's business model "depends on advertising revenue," and creates an incentive for Meta to attempt to keep Vermont teens on Instagram for as long as possible.

Meta argued in its request for review by the Supreme Court that merely having a national business model doesn't give every state in the country jurisdiction over the company.

"If a state court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant based on its 'business model,' nearly every large national business ... is at risk of being haled into the courts of all 50 states," Meta contends.

NetChoice backs that argument, writing in its friend-of-the-court brief that there isn't any connection between Meta's ad contacts with Vermont and the attorney general's claims regarding social media addiction.

"Permitting courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over website operators based on advertising alone would have staggering consequences for the national economy," NetChoice writes.

The group elaborates that the Vermont Supreme Court's ruling effectively leaves all web companies that accept advertising from a business in a particular state at risk of being dragged into court in that state, and forced to face claims that have no relation to the advertiser.

"The internet has transformed how businesses operate, but due process principles of personal jurisdiction apply just as equally to online businesses," NetChoice argues.

Vermont's attorney general is expected to respond to the arguments by April 17.