Another Failed Lawsuit Over Facebook’s Content Removals–Brock v. Zuckerberg

Facebook allegedly removed 30+ of the plaintiff’s posts. The plaintiff sued Facebook for constitutional violations and other claims. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. The Second Circuit affirms.

State Action. Brock argued that Facebook is a state actor because it is a publicly held company. Nope. He also argued that Facebook is the equivalent of a public square or public forum. The court says that Brock didn’t provide supporting facts for this allegation.

Judicial Conflicts-of-Interest. The lower court judge’s wife owns Facebook stock, but the judge learned about it only after the ruling. How does that happen? This is a bad situation from a conflicts-of-interest standpoint, and it highlights the importance of instituting tighter controls on public employees (including Congressmembers) owning or trading individual stocks. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit says vacatur isn’t warranted because of “the obvious deficiencies in Brock’s pleadings.” In other words, this case was never close, and any impartial judge would have dismissed it too.

A reminder that Jess Miers and I summarized 60+ account termination and content removal cases in this article.

Case Citation: Brock v. Zuckerberg, 2022 WL 1231044 (2d Cir. April 27, 2022)

Selected Posts About State Action Claims

• Section 230 Survives Yet Another Constitutional Challenge–Huber v. Biden
• Another Court Says Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–McWaters v. Houston
• Another Anti-Vaxxer Jawboning Lawsuit Fails–ICAN v. YouTube
• The First Amendment Protects Twitter’s Fact-Checking and Account Suspension Decisions–O’Handley v. Padilla
• One More Time: Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Atkinson v. Facebook
• Two More Courts Tell Litigants That Social Media Services Aren’t State Actors
• Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet Services into State Actors–Doe v. Google
• Anti-Zionist Loses Lawsuit Over Social Media Account Suspensions–Martillo v. Facebook
• Court Nopes Another Lawsuit Over Facebook Suspensions–Orders v. Facebook
• Facebook Defeats Lawsuit By Publishers of Vaccine (Mis?)information–Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook
• Court Rejects Lawsuit Alleging YouTube Engaged in Racially Biased Content Moderation–Newman v. Google
• Yet Another Court Says Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Brock v. Zuckerberg
• YouTube (Again) Defeats Lawsuit Over Content Removal–Lewis v. Google
• When It Came to @RealDonaldTrump, Twitter Couldn’t Please Everyone–Rutenberg v. Twitter
• Another Must-Carry Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails–Daniels v Alphabet
• Newspaper Isn’t State Actor–Plotkin v. Astorian
• An Account Suspension Case Fails Again–Perez v. LinkedIn
• Are Social Media Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?
• Google and Twitter Defeat Lawsuit Over Account Suspensions/Terminations–DeLima v. Google
• More Plaintiffs (and Lawyers) Need To Be Reminded That YouTube Isn’t a State Actor–Divino v. Google
• Facebook Isn’t a Constructive Public Trust–Cameron Atkinson v. Facebook
• Google and YouTube Aren’t “Censoring” Breitbart Comments–Belknap v. Alphabet
• LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn
• Section 230 Preempts Another Facebook Account Termination Case–Zimmerman v. Facebook
• Section 230 Ends Demonetized YouTuber’s Lawsuit–Lewis v. Google
• Court Rejects Another Lawsuit Alleging that Internet Companies Suppress Conservative Views–Freedom Watch v. Google
• Another Suspended Twitter User Loses in Court–Wilson v. Twitter
• First Voters Reject Tulsi Gabbard, Then a Judge Does–Gabbard v. Google
• YouTube Isn’t a State Actor (DUH)–PragerU v. Google
• Facebook Still Isn’t Obligated to Publish Russian Troll Content–FAN v. Facebook
• Vimeo Defeats Lawsuit for Terminating Account That Posted Conversion Therapy Videos–Domen v. Vimeo
• Russia Fucked With American Democracy, But It Can’t Fuck With Section 230–Federal Agency of News v. Facebook
• Private Publishers Aren’t State Actors–Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck
• Your Periodic Reminder That Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Williby v. Zuckerberg
• Section 230 Protects Facebook’s Account and Content Restriction Decisions–Ebeid v. Facebook
• Court Tosses Antitrust Claims That Internet Giants Are Biased Against Conservatives–Freedom Watch v. Google
• Twitter Isn’t a Shopping Mall for First Amendment Purposes (Duh)–Johnson v. Twitter
• YouTube Isn’t a Company Town (Duh)–Prager University v. Google
• Facebook Defeats Lawsuit By User Suspended Over ‘Bowling Green Massacre’–Shulman v. Facebook
• Yelp, Twitter and Facebook Aren’t State Actors–Quigley v. Yelp
• Facebook Not Liable for Account Termination–Young v. Facebook
• Online Game Network Isn’t Company Town–Estavillo v. Sony
• Third Circuit Says Google Isn’t State Actor–Jayne v. Google Founders
• Ask.com Not Liable for Search Results or Indexing Decisions–Murawski v. Pataki
• Search Engines Defeat “Must-Carry” Lawsuit–Langdon v. Google
• KinderStart Lawsuit Dismissed (With Leave to Amend)
• ICANN Not a State Actor