LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn

Perez had a LinkedIn account with over 7,000 connections (really?). LinkedIn removed some of his posts and restricted access to his profile due to alleged TOU violations.

State Action. Perez, proceeding pro se, alleged that LinkedIn “is subject to the First Amendment because it is ‘a governmental entity and a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party’s political agenda,’ not a private actor.” The court responds: “The First Amendment does not apply to private parties, including online service providers and social networking sites.” Cites to Shulman v. Facebook, Forbes v. Facebook, and Young v. Facebook. To get around this, Perez claimed he was suing for free speech violations separate from the First Amendment. The court says there’s no such right.

Venue. The court dismisses Perez’s claims but without prejudice. If Perez files a new complaint, the court transfers the case to the Northern District of California based on the exclusive venue clause in the TOU. Perez claimed that LinkedIn terminated the account by blocking his account and that nullified the exclusive venue clause, but the court says the venue clause expressly survives TOU termination.

Case citation: Perez v. LinkedIn Corp., 2020 WL 5997196 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2020)

Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims

• 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