Another Facebook Account Termination, Another Failed Lawsuit–Karam v. Meta

November 6, 2025 · by · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability, Licensing/Contracts

This is a pro se case. The court summarizes: “Meta purportedly banned or restricted [Karam’s] Facebook account, which allegedly prevented him from advertising his business or from engaging with potential customers through Marketplace or Facebook’s Buy/Sell Groups.” The court dismisses Karam’s case three different ways.

Section 230

  • ICS provider = yes.
  • Third party content = “Plaintiff contends that his accounts were banned and that Meta failed to prevent other Facebook users from posting content relating to Plaintiff. Thus, the content at issue was provided by someone other than Meta.”
  • Publisher/speaker claims = “Plaintiff’s claims treat Meta as a publisher to the extent they center on his allegations that Meta banned his accounts (i.e., refused to publish his content) and failed to prevent “hate speech, discriminatory content, and targeted harassment [from] proliferat[ing] on its platforms.” Claims premised upon a defendant’s decision whether to permit or remove a user’s content treat the defendant as a publisher of third-party content.”

The court easily concludes: Section 230 “bars Plaintiff’s claims that relate to Meta’s alleged editorial decisions to suspend or ban his account and to permit content posted by other Facebook users,” including claims for breach of contract and Fair Housing Act violations.

Facebook’s TOS

The court credits the following disclaimers in Facebook’s TOS:

We do not control or direct what people and others do or say, and we are not responsible for their actions or conduct (whether online or offline) or any content they share (including offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful, and other objectionable content).

and

Our Products, however, are provided “as is,” and we make no guarantees that they always will be safe, secure, or error-free, or that they will function without disruptions, delays, or imperfections. To the extent permitted by law, we also DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT

and the waiver of consequential damages.

Thus, the court summarizes that many of the claims are negated by the TOS because “they (1) are based on the conduct of third parties and Meta’s purported response to such conduct, (2) are based on the functionality or security of Facebook, and/or (3) seek only lost revenue or profits or consequential damages, such as reputational harm, stress and anxiety.”

Failure of the Prima Facie Elements

ADA Accessibility. “Facebook Marketplace is not a ‘place of public accommodation’ under the ADA because it is not a physical location.” Cite to Lloyd v. Facebook.

Unfulfilled FOIA Responses. “Private companies like Meta are not an ‘agency’ under FOIA.”

1983 Claims. “Plaintiff has not—and cannot—allege that Meta, a private company, is a state actor.”

Another entry in the list of failed account termination/content removal cases.

Case Citation: Karam v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 WL 3079048 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025)