352 F. Supp. 3d 965
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiff Copeland sued social-media defendants under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) and state tort law after the 2016 Nice attack, alleging defendants' platforms enabled ISIS propaganda that led to Bouhlel's radicalization and the attack.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) for failure to plausibly plead proximate cause and aiding-and-abetting liability; plaintiff conceded dismissal of some statutory counts.
- The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent requiring a "direct" proximate-cause link for direct ATA liability (Fields) and found Copeland did not allege a direct relationship between defendants' services and Bouhlel or the attack.
- For secondary liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d), the court applied the Halberstam framework (as clarified by Linde) and found Copeland failed to plead that defendants were generally aware they were playing a role in terrorist activity or that they provided "substantial assistance."
- The court also dismissed state-law wrongful death and negligent infliction claims for lack of proximate cause and denied leave to amend, noting Copeland alleged defendants took some takedown steps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct ATA liability (proximate cause under § 2333(a)) | Copeland alleges ISIS used defendants' platforms to radicalize Bouhlel and that connection supports proximate causation | No plausible direct relationship between defendants' services and Bouhlel/the Nice attack (follow Fields) | Dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff failed to plead the required direct link |
| Secondary liability (aiding & abetting under § 2333(d)) | Alleged that defendants aided ISIS generally and thereby aided the attack | § 2333(d) requires role/assistance directed toward the actor; allegations show only general use by ISIS and post-attack claims | Dismissed with prejudice; failed to plead general awareness of playing a role and substantial assistance |
| State-law wrongful death and negligent infliction | Defendants' platforms caused Bouhlel's radicalization, supporting proximate cause under state law | Allegations are conclusory and do not show how defendants' services proximately caused the attack | Dismissed with prejudice for lack of proximate cause |
| Material-support criminal statutes claims (§§ 2339A/B/C and IEEPA) | FAC included some material-support allegations (some counts voluntarily conceded) | Plaintiff did not and could not plausibly plead requisite knowledge/connection to the specific attack | Dismissed (plaintiff conceded some; remaining counts fail for lack of proximate cause/knowledge) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Twitter, 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018) (proximate cause under ATA requires a direct relationship between defendant's conduct and the attack)
- Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (framework for civil aiding-and-abetting liability)
- Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, 882 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2018) (interpreting Halberstam for ATA aiding-and-abetting; requiring general awareness of playing a role and substantial assistance)
- Taamneh v. Twitter, 343 F. Supp. 3d 904 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (dismissing materially similar allegations for lack of proximate cause and aiding-and-abetting proof)
- Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 335 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (analyzing JASTA and secondary liability claims)
- Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (earlier decision addressing related claims)
- Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 3d 564 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (dismissing similar claims for failure to plead proximate cause or substantial assistance)