370 F. Supp. 3d 621
E.D. Va.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Brian C. Davison sued Loudoun County School Board (LCSB), Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter alleging viewpoint discrimination, prior restraints, and due-process injuries arising from deletion/hidden of his comments on LCSB social-media pages and from platform terms of service.
- Plaintiff alleges platforms enforce viewpoint-based moderation (hate-speech bans, user bans), delete comments via automated systems, and invite government entities to use their services; LCSB created pages on each platform.
- Specific factual allegations: Davison’s comments on LCSB’s Facebook posts in August and October 2018 were removed/hidden; Facebook later acknowledged its systems deleted at least some comments.
- Plaintiff asserts (1) broad constitutional challenges to platforms’ content policies and venue-selection clauses in their terms of service; (2) as-applied First Amendment and Due Process claims based on deletion of his Facebook comments; and (3) that platforms are state actors because they retain moderation authority over LCSB pages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss: LCSB argued Davison lacks Article III standing and did not cause the deletions; Facebook/YouTube/Twitter argued they are private actors not subject to §1983 and Davison lacks standing against YouTube and Twitter. The court granted the motions and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue LCSB for broad policy/prior-restraint claims | Davison says platform terms chill speech and LCSB is entwined with platforms, causing injury | LCSB: no particularized concrete injury alleged; plaintiff alleges only generalized chilling | Dismissed for lack of Article III standing (no injury in fact) |
| Standing to sue LCSB for deletion of Davison's comments | Davison alleges his comments on LCSB Facebook posts were deleted, causing First Amendment and due-process injury | LCSB: deletions are not alleged to be done by LCSB; plaintiff admits Facebook deleted comments | Dismissed for lack of standing as deletions aren’t fairly traceable to LCSB |
| Standing to sue YouTube and Twitter | Davison alleges platforms retain moderation authority over LCSB pages and their terms chill speakers | YouTube/Twitter: plaintiff alleges no personal harm from these platforms; no deletions or accounts tied to him | Dismissed for lack of standing as Davison alleges no concrete injury traceable to YouTube/Twitter |
| Whether Facebook (and other platforms) are state actors for §1983/First Amendment purposes | Davison contends platforms are state actors because they retain authority to moderate government pages and LCSB agreed to terms | Facebook: private actor; §1983 requires state action; mere entwinement/approval insufficient; no coercion, delegation of exclusive public function, or other tests met | Court held Facebook is not a state actor; plaintiff failed to state a plausible constitutional claim against Facebook |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard and conclusory allegations)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499 (private parties not state actors absent state domination)
- Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (mere approval or acquiescence insufficient for state action)
- Andrews v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, 998 F.2d 214 (four circumstances for private party to be state actor)
- La'Tiejira v. Facebook, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 3d 981 (recognizing Facebook's editorial discretion)
- United Auto Workers v. Gaston Festivals, Inc., 43 F.3d 902 (private organizers of public events not necessarily state actors)
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (limits of pro se liberal construction)
- Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (pro se complaints are not exempt from pleading rules)
- Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (judicial solicitude for pro se plaintiffs has limits)