Google and Twitter Defeat Lawsuit Over Account Suspensions/Terminations–DeLima v. Google
Natasha DeLima (a/k/a “Natasha Athens”) claims that Google and Twitter have imposed various sanctions on her accounts, including suspension and termination. She alleges that Google and Twitter took these actions due to political bias against her. (This article notes some of DeLima’s “political” views–Trump, QAnon, “prominent Jewish families,” and Justice Robert’s alleged pedophilia all appear in the article). DeLima previously unsuccessfully sued Google. She tried again (pro se, naturally) with the same outcome:
Civil Rights Claims. “Defendants are private companies and not state actors, and thus cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, absent factual allegations that could lead to a finding of state action.”
First Amendment. DeLima “acknowledges that Defendants are private companies and not government entities, which is fatal to her claim.”
Defamation. “The act of a service provider disconnecting a social media account or domain name, or moderating or deleting content on these accounts, is not a ‘statement’ for purposes of defamation law.” Section 230 also applies “to the extent DeLima is arguing that Defendants should be held responsible for allegedly defamatory content posted by a third party on one of her domains.”
Copyright. A “violation of ‘fair use laws’ [is not] a viable claim.”
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). “private publisher content, such as moderating content, removing content, and choosing advertisers and advertisements for their platforms” isn’t outrageous conduct.
Case citation: DeLima v. Google, Inc., 2021 WL 294560 (D.N.H. Jan. 28, 2021)
Bonus: Rutenberg v. Twitter, 4:21-cv-00548-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021): “A fundamental flaw in Rutenburg’s entire case is that the claimed rights under the 1st Amendment (and the corollary claims under the 14th Amendment) cannot be enforced against a private entity such as defendant Twitter.” The complaint in that case (remarkably, a lawyer is handling that case).
Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims
- 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
Pingback: News of the Week; February 3, 2021 – Communications Law at Allard Hall()
Pingback: Are Social Media Services "State Actors" or "Common Carriers"? - Technology & Marketing Law Blog()