Amicus Brief Argues First Amendment Shields Meta from Liability Over ‘Addictive’ Design

In a brief filed in Patterson v. Meta Platforms, Inc., a group of law scholars assert that the New York Court of Appeals must dismiss the lawsuit alleging that Meta’s platform design contributed to the Buffalo supermarket shooting. Citing First Amendment precedent, they argue that the plaintiffs’ negligence claim cannot succeed because the speech displayed on the platform is constitutionally protected and does not fall within narrow exceptions such as incitement.

The brief emphasizes that design elements like autoplay, infinite scroll, notifications and “likes” are expressive choices akin to techniques used in novels, television and religious services, and therefore enjoy the same protection. It further rejects the idea that alleged psychological “addictiveness” creates a valid basis for regulation, noting that no such exception exists in free-speech jurisprudence. The authors caution that allowing tort claims on this ground would spur self-censorship and undermine public access to ideas, suggesting that any restrictions should come from legislative action, not the courts.