Section 230 (Still) Applies to Contract Breach Claim–NJCCC v. McAleer

June 13, 2025 · by · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability, Licensing/Contracts

This case involves four main players:

  • Newsmatics, which runs the EIN Presswire service, a pay-to-play press release distribution service.
  • Frankly Media, one of Newsmatics’ distribution partners.
  • Hwang, who submitted press releases to Newsmatics claiming that an NJ state court was not handling cases fairly.
  • McAleer, a communications manager at the NJ state court system.

McAleer contacted Frankly Media about Hwang’s press releases. Frankly Media forwarded McAleer’s inquiry to EIN Presswire, which retracted one of Hwang’s press releases. EIN Presswire explained “our standard operating procedure is to remove a press release once we receive a complaint from a third-party publisher or anyone in general.” NB: this is not exactly a model of editorial integrity.

Hwang’s organization sued Newsmatics and McAleer. The court grants both defendants summary judgment. I’m primarily blogging this for the Section 230 discussion, but the Vullo/jawboning discussion is also in-scope.

Newsmatics Qualifies for Section 230

Hwang said that Newsmatics’ withdrawal of the press release was a breach of contract, i.e., Hwang paid to place the press release, and Newsmatics didn’t follow its purported rules for posting such content. Newsmatics wins on Section 230 grounds.

ICS Provider. Undisputed.

Another Information Content Provider. “There is no dispute that the press releases were drafted and prepared by Plaintiff and not Newsmatics. And there is nothing in the record to suggest that Newsmatics imparted its own expression into Plaintiff’s press releases.”

Publisher/Speaker Claim. “courts have consistently held that § 230(c)(1) bars breach of contract claims, including those related to the removal of content.” Cites include Yuksel v. Twitter, Haywood v. Amazon, Rangel v. Dorsey, Murphy v. Twitter. While it’s true that many courts have applied Section 230 to breach of contract claims, the “consistently” claim is shaky in the wake of the Calise v. Meta and Bride v. YOLO rulings–which sub silento may have overturned some of the cases cited by the court. The court didn’t engage the Calise or Bride precedents. I think this court got it right, but that’s because I think the Calise and Bride rulingson 230/contracts were wrong. For more on that, see Ryan v. X.

McAleer Didn’t Engage in Jawboning

Hwang argued that McAleer censored him by using his position as a government official to drive Hwang’s press release offline. The court responds that the “Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim turns on whether McAleer “threatened” or “coerced” Newsmatics into retracting the February 20 press release. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that he did not.”

The court explains:

McAleer’s email requesting that the February 20 press release be “removed immediately” does not rise to the level of state-coerced action….McAleer’s email is “devoid” of “any enforceable threats,” as he lacked any regulatory or enforcement power…

the recipient of the communication in this case…testified that its decision to remove the February 20 press release was not the result of government coercion or intimidation. Newsmatics’s vice president for corporate development, Jeremy Fields, testified that it was the company’s policy to retract press releases upon receiving complaints from publishers….

McAleer didn’t make “any specific threat to investigate or prosecute Newsmatics if it did not retract the press release.”

I guess if a publisher honors all hecklers’ vetoes unquestioningly, then treating a government’s inquiry as just another heckler’s veto isn’t a big deal.

Newsmatics Wasn’t a State Actor

Hwang also argued that McAleer’s threat converted Newsmatics into a state actor. The court disagrees:

McAleer neither exercised coercive power over Newsmatics nor significantly encouraged it to act when he emailed Newsmatics’s publishing partner. As a result, the Court finds that Newsmatics cannot be held liable as a state actor.

In the end, this case becomes just another failed case over online content removal.

Case Citation: New Jersey Chinese Community Center, Inc. v. McAleer, 2025 WL 1564869 (D.N.J. June 3, 2025)

Selected Jawboning Posts

Selected Posts About State Action Claims