An Account Suspension Case Fails Again–Perez v. LinkedIn

Perez sued LinkedIn for suspending his account. In October, a court in Southern District of Texas dismissed the complaint because LinkedIn isn’t a state actor. The court gave Perez the opportunity to refile in the Northern District of California, which he did (pro se again). However, the sequel doesn’t do any better.

Anti-SLAPP Violation. Perez claimed that LinkedIn violated anti-SLAPP laws. This argument is a head-scratcher for anyone familiar with anti-SLAPP laws. The court says it doesn’t apply because “LinkedIn has not initiated any suit against Perez to chill constitutionally protected speech….the anti-SLAPP applies against a party pursuing litigation and is designed to protect defendants from vexatious and suppressive litigation. The statute does not provide a basis for a plaintiff to bring an affirmative suit for substantive relief.”

IIED. A “private party simply choosing to not provide access to its platform does not meet the threshold of extreme conduct exceeding the boundaries of a civilized society.”

First Amendment. “Courts across the country have found social media companies are private, not state actors.”

Perez has already appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

Case citation: Perez v. LinkedIn Corp., 2021 WL 519379 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2021)

ALSO: Engel v. Facebook, 2021 WL 148874 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2021): “Plaintiff’s allegation that Facebook allowed people to hack his account does not state a § 1983 claim because Facebook is a private company, not a state actor. ”

    Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims