Fields v. Twitter, Inc.
217 F. Supp. 3d 1116
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- In Nov. 2015 two U.S. contractor trainers (Fields and Creach) were shot and killed in Amman, Jordan; ISIS claimed responsibility. The shooter had no alleged connection to Twitter in the complaint.
- Plaintiffs (families) sued Twitter under the Anti‑Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. § 2333(a)) alleging Twitter knowingly provided material support to ISIS (18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A/2339B) by allowing ISIS to create and use Twitter accounts and Direct Messaging, and that this was a proximate cause of the deaths.
- The district court had previously dismissed the FAC under CDA § 230(c)(1); plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) seeking to reframe liability as account‑provision rather than content‑publication.
- Twitter moved to dismiss, asserting CDA § 230(c)(1) immunity because the claims treat Twitter as the publisher/speaker of third‑party ISIS content; Twitter also challenged causation under the ATA.
- The court held § 230(c)(1) bars the SAC: (1) account‑provision decisions are publishing activity because they necessarily target content/affiliation; (2) the SAC substantively seeks liability for Twitter’s hosting/allowing ISIS content (including private Direct Messages); and (3) plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible proximate causal link between Twitter’s conduct and the specific attack. Judgment: dismissal with prejudice (no leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDA § 230(c)(1) bars plaintiffs’ ATA/material‑support claims | Twitter’s provision of accounts (and direct messaging) is a content‑neutral, non‑publishing act and therefore outside § 230 | Plaintiffs’ claims seek to treat Twitter as a publisher/speaker of ISIS content; § 230 immunizes such publisher‑based liability | Dismissed: § 230(c)(1) bars the claims because they implicate publishing functions |
| Whether furnishing accounts is non‑content activity | Provision of an account is a discrete, non‑publishing decision (handing over a tool) | Account creation is content‑based: usernames/profiles express affiliation and banning ISIS would require content‑based decisions; site design choices are publisher functions | Dismissed: providing accounts is publishing activity and falls within § 230 immunity |
| Whether Twitter’s Direct Messages are outside § 230 because private | Direct Messages are private, non‑public communications and thus not publishing | § 230 covers publishing broadly (including transmission of nonpublic messages); publisher status in defamation law informs § 230’s scope | Dismissed: Direct Messaging-based claims also treated as publisher activity and barred by § 230 |
| Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged proximate causation under the ATA | Twitter’s provision of fungible material support to ISIS and ISIS’s responsibility for the attack suffice | Plaintiffs must plausibly allege a non‑speculative causal link between Twitter’s conduct and the specific attack | Dismissed for failure to plead proximate causation: no factual link between Abu Zaid and Twitter alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (apply plausibility and legal conclusion rules)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.) (§ 230 prevents treating providers as publishers for third‑party content)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.) (test whether duty derives from publisher role)
- Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.) (application of § 230 beyond defamation in assessing publisher treatment)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.) (publisher prerogatives include choosing material)
- Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.) (website structural/operational choices are within § 230 publishing protections)
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir.) (publisher functions include decisions to print or retract)
- Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir.) (§ 230 protects providers traditionally viewed as publishers)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.) (need for plausible proximate causation in ATA suits)
- Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.) (rejecting overly attenuated causation theories in ATA context)