Yet Another Court Says Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Brock v. Zuckerberg
Facebook allegedly “censored” the plaintiff “at least 30 times.” Facebook flagged his content as spam, hate speech, abusive, and “partly false.” He sued Facebook for violating the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also claims Facebook “violated Plaintiff’s ‘right to free speech’ by allowing the “Facebook Oversight Board,” which he presumes is responsible for ensuring user compliance with Facebook’s Community Standards, to ‘censor’ his content.” [Note: this is the first, but surely not the last, appearance of the Oversight Board in the Lexis caselaw database.] Of course, there’s a RICO claim too. A judge has called this plaintiff a serial litigant.
First Amendment. “circuits that have confronted the issue have unanimously held platforms like Facebook are not state actors….Other courts throughout the country have also declined to treat Facebook as a state actor and have upheld the company’s ability to remove content.” Cites to Freedom Watch v. Google; Prager U. v. YouTube; Ebeid v. Facebook; Zimmerman v. Facebook. Thus, the court says plainly, “Facebook is not a state actor.”
To work around this, the plaintiff alleged that Facebook performs a traditional government function, like delivering mail. The court responds:
“[i]t is ‘not enough’ that the relevant function is something that a government has ‘exercised . . . in the past, or still does’ or ‘that the function serves the public good.'” Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998 (quoting Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1928-29). The government must have performed the function in question exclusively as well. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1929. Facilitating the exchange of communication or hosting a platform for discussion are not activities “that only governmental entities have traditionally performed.” Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998 (quoting Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1930). Thus, Plaintiff may not “avoid the state action question” by claiming that Facebook is serving a public function.
The plaintiff argued that Facebook is the new town square. Zimmerman rejected that argument, and “courts have refused to extend Marsh’s holding to social media cases” (cite to Prager U). Also, the plaintiff unsuccessfully claimed that Facebook’s status as a publicly traded company made it a state actor. This is a crazy argument, and it was already rejected in the Freedom Watch case.
- ICS. Yes, per Cohen v. Facebook.
- Third-Party Content. The complaint makes clear that Facebook didn’t provide the content at issue (the plaintiff did).
- Publisher/Speaker Claims. The court cites the standard Zeran language that 230 protects traditional editorial functions. Cites to LeadClick and Domen.
“Facebook is therefore immune under Section 230(c)(1) from claims related to its removal of objectionable content.”
RICO. It’s never civil RICO.
[Note: Jess Miers and I have a draft article coming very soon comprehensively covering lawsuits over account terminations/content removals like this case. If you are interested in commenting on the draft, email me.]
Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims
- YouTube (Again) Defeats Lawsuit Over Content Removal–Lewis v. Google
- When It Came to @RealDonaldTrump, Twitter Couldn’t Please Everyone–Rutenberg v. Twitter
- Another Must-Carry Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails–Daniels v Alphabet
- Newspaper Isn’t State Actor–Plotkin v. Astorian
- An Account Suspension Case Fails Again–Perez v. LinkedIn
- Are Social Media Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?
- Google and Twitter Defeat Lawsuit Over Account Suspensions/Terminations–DeLima v. Google
- 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