Castronuova v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
4:24-cv-02523
| N.D. Cal. | Jun 10, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Cara Castronuova alleged that Meta (Facebook) and X Corp. (Twitter/X) conspired with the federal government to censor her conservative views during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Meta suspended Castronuova’s Facebook account and X Corp. "shadow banned" her X account in or around November 2020, citing violations of community standards and misinformation policies.
- Castronuova claimed this caused professional and personal harm, including harming her journalism, activism, real estate business, and a political campaign.
- Plaintiff filed six claims, including First Amendment violations, civil rights conspiracy, California UCL, breach of implied covenant, and interference with contracts and prospective economic relations.
- Meta and X Corp. moved to dismiss the claims, invoking Section 230 of the CDA and their own First Amendment rights.
- The court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice (no leave to amend), finding amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 230 Immunity | Defendants acted as government agents, not just publishers | All claims treat them as publishers; Section 230 applies | Section 230 immunity applies; claims dismissed |
| First Amendment Violation | Social media acted jointly with government, so state action | Content moderation is protected editorial discretion | No First Amendment liability; protected expression |
| State Law Claims (e.g., UCL, Tortious Interf.) | Censorship harmed business and political prospects | Section 230 preempts these state law claims | Section 230 bars claims; dismissed with prejudice |
| Leave to Amend | Should be permitted to amend complaint to cure defects | Amendment is futile; legal barrier is insurmountable | Dismissed without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard for facial plausibility)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (Section 230 three-prong test)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (limits of Section 230 immunity when website develops content)
- Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (disclosure and publication constitute First Amendment-protected speech)
- Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707 (content moderation is editorial discretion protected by First Amendment)