Section 230 Preempts Another Facebook Account Termination Case–Zimmerman v. Facebook

October 5, 2020 · by · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability

Another pro se lawsuit over Facebook account terminations fails. Some background on the case.

This is an easy Section 230 case: “A social media site’s decision to delete or block access to a user’s individual profile falls squarely within this [Section 230] immunity.” Cites to Riggs, FAN, Ebeid, & Sikhs for Justice.

There is no constitutional workaround: “To the extent that the constitutional claims are free speech claims premised on the blocking of the plaintiffs’ accounts, they fail because Facebook is not a state actor.” The court explains:

The plaintiffs argue that Facebook has become a “quasi-state actor” by operating a “digital town square” and providing a “public free speech forum.” But the Ninth Circuit recently rejected these exact arguments in the context of constitutional claims brought against YouTube, and its reasoning is equally applicable here [cite to Prager U v. YouTube]

Those rulings are pretty well established, but the court did address a less common argument:

Finally, the plaintiffs’ claims relating to Facebook’s allegedly treasonous conduct fail because “[t]here is no private cause of action for treason.”

(A reminder: treason is waging war against our country).

Case citation: Zimmerman v. Facebook, Inc., 2020 WL 5877863 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020). The complaint.

Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims