Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
1:24-cv-00773
D. Del.Nov 18, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (parent of Facebook) alleging unauthorized use of his name and likeness in third-party CBD product advertisements on Facebook.
- Three specific ads falsely claimed Huckabee endorsed CBD products and featured his image, leading to public association with the CBD industry.
- Huckabee asserted state law claims: violation of the Arkansas Frank Broyles Publicity Protection Act (FBPPA), invasion of privacy (appropriation and false light), unjust enrichment, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Meta moved to dismiss, primarily arguing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) barred the claims and, alternatively, the complaint failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The case is before the District of Delaware on diversity jurisdiction, with both sides fully briefing the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 230 CDA Immunity | Meta is an information content provider and not immune. | Section 230 fully bars Huckabee’s claims. | Section 230 not established as a bar at this stage. |
| FBPPA Statutory Claim | Meta commercially used his likeness with malice or reckless disregard. | No sufficient allegation of scienter (knowledge/awareness). | No plausible scienter alleged; claim dismissed. |
| Invasion of Privacy (Appropriation) | Common law claim survives if no commercial use shown. | FBPPA is exclusive remedy; common law claim preempted. | Preempted by FBPPA; claim dismissed. |
| Invasion of Privacy (False Light) | Meta acted with malice/reckless disregard by hosting ads. | No malice or serious doubt as to truth shown. | No malice alleged; claim dismissed. |
| Unjust Enrichment | Meta received value by profiting off unauthorized likeness use. | No culpable conduct; Meta exercised legal rights. | No plausible fault/cause for unjust enrichment; dismissed. |
| Declaratory and Injunctive Relief | Independent cause of action for injunctive remedies. | Not cognizable as standalone claims if substantive fails. | Remedies not causes of action; denied as relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standards for plausibility on motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (articulates the standard for facial plausibility in pleadings)
- Dodrill v. Ark. Democrat Co., 590 S.W.2d 840 (Ark. 1979) (outlines elements and malice requirement for false light privacy claims)
- Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580 (8th Cir. 2008) (explains Arkansas's common law appropriation tort pre-FBPPA)
- Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 381 S.W.3d 21 (Ark. 2011) (states Arkansas law on unjust enrichment)
- Colonia Ins. Co. v. City Nat'l Bank, 988 F. Supp. 1242 (W.D. Ark. 1997) (explains legal entitlement precludes unjust enrichment)