City of Boston files suit against Meta, other social media companies for harming students' mental health. July 8, 2026 BOSTON (WHDH) - Boston Mayor Michelle Wu filed a lawsuit against META and other social media companies due to the harm they cause to Boston Public Schools students' mental health. The companies include TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, claiming they deliberately target minors with addictive features that are bad for students. "Social media companies have evidence of the harm they are causing to our kids by designing platforms that keep them hooked in endless scrolling and monetizing engagement at the expense of their mental health," said Mayor Michelle Wu. "Boston is taking legal action to protect children and youth and hold these companies accountable. Today, we are making it clear that social media companies must end exploitative practices and be accountable to standards of basic protection for children." "Boston Public Schools provides critical mental health services for young people in our community through our counselors, social workers, psychologists, and nurses who have gone above and beyond to meet increasing student needs," said Boston Public Schools Superintendent Mary Skipper. "We work hard to set our students on the best course for success through rigorous academics and whole-student supports, and the research is clear that social media has had a negative impact on students' well-being while benefiting companies. We all need to do what is right for our students." A spokesperson from Meta released a statement, saying, "We strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people. For over a decade, we've listened to parents, worked with experts and law enforcement, and conducted in-depth research to understand the issues that matter most. We're proud of the progress we've made, and we're always working to do better."

148 State Street owner sues City of Boston for retaliatory property tax assessments. Class action challenges city's unlawful penalties against commercial taxpayers who exercised their right to appeal; seeks court intervention to end this retaliatory scheme in next fiscal year. BOSTON, MA - Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (the Legal Foundation) and Sullivan & Worcester LLP today filed on behalf of their client 148 State Street a class action lawsuit against the City of Boston, alleging that the Assessor's Office has illegally retaliated against commercial taxpayers for exercising their constitutional right to appeal property tax assessments before the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) since 2024. "This case is about the rule of law," said Frank J. Bailey, President of Pioneer New England Legal Foundation and a former federal judge. "Boston's Assessor's Office has decided that when citizens exercise their right to appeal an unjust tax, they deserve to be punished. That is not how a lawful government behaves. Both our federal and state constitutions give citizens a right to petition the government, including unfettered access to the courts. Boston has made commercial landowners pay a heavy price for exercising that right." The lawsuit, which was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court, seeks to prohibit the city from retaliating against taxpayers who appeal their assessments, to declare the city's policy unlawful, and to order repayment of excess taxes collected for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. The named plaintiff in this class action is the owner of 148 State Street which represents all commercial property owners, large and small, that have been victimized by this unlawful scheme. City's Conduct and Legal Violations According to the complaint, the City of Boston's Assessor's Office deliberately and systematically violated state and federal law by overriding its own determinations of fair market value for taxpayers who filed appeals. Even when the assessors agreed that a property's value had declined (e.g. from $120 million to $100 million) it allegedly overrode the CAMS software system and added back value under a "discretionary adjustment" box. In FY2024, those adjustments were labeled "ATB Appeal" or "ATB Dispute." In FY2025, the labels disappeared, but the practice seemingly continued: roughly half the decline in value was added back to every appealed property. The pattern produced a consistent penalty ratio across the board but the scheme was hidden from taxpayers because it was not visible on the tax bills that the city issued. The impact was clear and unlawful: commercial taxpayers who appealed their assessments were charged higher taxes than comparable properties that did not appeal. The lawsuit states that the City of Boston thereby violated the very laws that govern assessors' duties and the constitutional rights of citizens who petition their government for relief. The lawsuit asserts four independent legal violations by the city: * It breached Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 2A(a) by failing to determine "fair cash value" as required; * It violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by penalizing taxpayers for exercising their right to petition; * It violated Articles XI and XVI of the Massachusetts Constitution by denying free access to the courts; * And, it violated Amendment Article CXII of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires that all property within a class be taxed proportionally and equally. "At a time when commercial properties are declining in value after the pandemic, property owners are already facing challenging times," said Patrick P. Dinardo of Sullivan & Worcester. "For Boston to further penalize property owners in an apparent effort to intimidate them from seeking review at the ATB is unconscionable. It discourages investment in the city which hurts every Boston citizen." Why a Class Action The lawsuit seeks class certification because the city's unlawful practice applies uniformly to affected taxpayers. Virtually all commercial property owners who appealed to the ATB in prior years saw a comparable "discretionary add-back" applied to their FY2024 or FY2025 assessments. A class action allows the court to decide one central question - whether the city may retaliate against taxpayers for appealing - without forcing hundreds of nearly identical lawsuits through the system. The Legal Foundation began its investigation earlier this year and gave written notice to the city and the Department of Revenue at least three times since June. The Legal Foundation's research at City Hall uncovered dozens of examples of the retaliatory tax scheme. After the city failed to offer any meaningful response on how to remedy the impact of its assessment practices, 148 State Street and the class of affected owners were left with no choice but to resort to litigation. "The sooner the city steps up and addresses its unlawful practices, the better for the city and for every taxpayer who plays by the rules," added Bailey. DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.