• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Meta Platforms has asked the Supreme Court to review a Nevada state court ruling that allowed the attorney general to proceed with claims that the company designed its services to addict young users.

In a petition made available Thursday, Meta argues that it's protected from liability by the First Amendment as well as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The First Amendment broadly protects publishers' editorial discretion, and Section 230 generally provides that online publishers aren't liable for content posted by third parties.

Meta specifically argues to the Supreme Court that Section 230 and the First Amendment shield publishers from liability over editorial choices, including determinations about how to present user-generated content.

"Online publishers, like their print-media precursors, must constantly make editorial decisions about how to display third-party content -- such as whether to provide a continuous stream or limited selection of content, to target a particular audience, or to prioritize short-form over long-form material," Meta writes.

"Speech and press liberties ensure that a plaintiff could never sue a newspaper for arranging its stories to maximize subscriptions or cable news for teasing stories before commercial breaks to keep viewers tuned in," the company adds. "The answer should be no different for social media."

Nevada is among dozens of states that are suing Meta for allegedly violating consumer protection laws by harming young users. Some state attorneys general, including ones in Nevada and Massachusetts, are suing in state court.

Others have banded together to bring a joint suit in federal court in Oakland, which is expected to go to trial next week. 

The platforms also face thousands of lawsuits by teens, families, school districts and cities.

The precise claims vary by state and plaintiff, but the cases against Meta all essentially center on allegations that it implemented "addictive" features on Facebook and Instagram -- such as videos that play automatically -- and then served teens with potentially harmful content, including posts that promote eating disorders.

While the petition unveiled Thursday only deals with Nevada's suit, a ruling from the Supreme Court could affect all of the addiction-related lawsuits currently pending against social platforms.

Earlier in the proceedings, Meta asked Nevada's highest court to throw out the attorney general's claims.

In April, the Supreme Court of Nevada rejected Meta's request, effectively holding that Section 230 did not protect the company from design-related decisions.

"The State's complaints -- on their faces -- do not seek to hold Meta liable for any third-party content it publishes, so Section 230 immunity does not attach," the judges wrote.

Meta argues that this decision wrongly interprets the law.

"The Nevada Supreme Court’s approach to Section 230 is wrong," Meta argues, adding that the statute protects web companies from liability "for third-party content and its publication."

"The Nevada Supreme Court improperly viewed publishing as confined to deciding whether to publish particular content -- excluding the many editorial decisions publishers must make about how and to whom to publish third-party content," Meta writes. "That atextual view is irreconcilable with the ordinary meaning of 'publisher.'"

The tech company also says that regardless of whether Section 230 applies, the First Amendment separately protects design decisions.

"Although claims of harm from publishing are as old as the Republic itself, there is no history of prohibiting purportedly 'addictive' presentations of content," Meta writes.

The Supreme Court hasn't yet indicated when it will rule on Meta's request.