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