The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a bid by Meta Platforms to avoid a lawsuit brought by Vermont's attorney general accusing the company of designing its Instagram social media app to be addictive for young users, as big technology companies face mounting legal risks over child and teen safety.

The justices turned away Meta's appeal of a lower court's ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed, rejecting the company's argument that courts in Vermont lack jurisdiction over the dispute.

The case is part of a wave of litigation by individuals, municipalities, states and school districts nationwide amid a global backlash over the effects of social media on young users, with lawsuits focusing on how companies designed and operated their platforms.

Vermont argued that Instagram was designed ​to "exploit teenagers' developing brains" to foster addiction and sell more advertising space, including ads that target Vermont markets and teens, and ⁠that Meta also intentionally misled consumers about the safety of its product.

Meta said the state did not allege that it designed the app or its features ​in Vermont, or that any of the alleged misrepresentations about Instagram's safety or addictiveness were made in Vermont. Testifying in February at a youth social media addiction trial ​in California, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied that Instagram targets kids.

Vermont's Democratic Attorney General Charity Clark sued Meta in 2023 in state court under the state's consumer protection law, claiming that Instagram has even studied teens' neurological, cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities to cause them to use the app compulsively and excessively, harming their mental health.

The lawsuit was part of a coordinated effort by 42 state attorneys general, who filed enforcement actions in both state and federal courts across the country.

Meta sought to have the Vermont case dismissed. Meta has argued that allowing the case to proceed in Vermont is unfair and violates its right to due process under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, because it could subject the company to such legal challenges in all 50 states.

The Vermont Supreme Court rejected this concern in 2025, noting that because the state sued Meta for allegedly pushing a harmful design and misleading users about it - harnessing personal information and generating revenue as a result - any due process concerns are "clearly extinguished."

"A company that reaches out and purposefully avails itself of a forum state's market for its own economic gain can expect to be haled into court in that jurisdiction to account for its conduct related to ​those business activities," the Vermont Supreme ​Court said.

Meta's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court follows recent unfavourable outcomes for the company in state courts.

In April, the top court in Massachusetts ruled that Meta must face a similar youth addiction lawsuit by that state's attorney general.

In March, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million ​in civil penalties in a lawsuit by New Mexico's attorney general, accusing the company of misleading users about the safety ​of Facebook and Instagram ⁠and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

Also in March, a separate jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Alphabet's Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, awarding a combined $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child.

In May, Meta settled a lawsuit ⁠brought by ​a school district in Kentucky, one of thousands seeking to make social media companies cover the costs ​that schools say they have incurred to combat a mental health crisis allegedly fueled by platforms.