272 F. Supp. 3d 981
S.D. Tex.2017Background
- Plaintiff Paree La’Tiejira (Texas resident, formerly in adult entertainment) sued Facebook, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg after a third party ("Kyle Anders") posted allegedly defamatory and harassing statements on her Facebook page in March 2016; Facebook removed the post ~6 months later after suit was filed.
- La’Tiejira asserted state-law claims: defamation/libel, breach of implied contract (based on Facebook’s bullying/harassment policies), and intentional infliction of emotional distress; she also sought an as-applied constitutional ruling that §230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is unconstitutional and sought damages.
- Facebook and Zuckerberg moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) §27.003 (anti‑SLAPP) and invoked CDA §230 immunity; the TCPA motion stayed discovery and shifted burdens if the motion showed the suit targeted protected free‑speech activity.
- Defendants argued (and presented evidence) that the challenged statements were user‑generated, that Facebook is an interactive computer service, and that plaintiff’s claims necessarily treat Facebook as a publisher (i.e., liability based on decisions to host/remove user content).
- Plaintiff argued she reported the post under Facebook’s removal/bullying policies and that Facebook’s six‑month delay violated its policies and denied her court access; she also contended the statements were not matters of public concern and that §230 should not shield Facebook from liability for failure to timely remove hate speech.
- The court held the TCPA applied (defendants met the first‑step showing) and that La’Tiejira failed to produce clear and specific evidence creating a prima facie case; independently, CDA §230 barred liability because Facebook did not create the content and the claims sought to treat Facebook as publisher. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA applies | La’Tiejira: claims are not protected speech/matter of public concern and thus not subject to TCPA dismissal | Facebook: claims arise from publishing decisions about user content — protected free‑speech and petition activities under TCPA | TCPA applies; defendants met step one showing and burden shifted to plaintiff |
| Whether plaintiff met TCPA burden to avoid dismissal (clear & specific prima facie) | La’Tiejira: she reported the post and suffered damages; Facebook violated its policies and caused harm | Facebook: plaintiff presented no competent evidence that creates a prima facie case or that Facebook authored content | Plaintiff failed to produce clear, specific evidence; TCPA dismissal warranted |
| Whether CDA §230 immunizes Facebook/Zuckerberg | La’Tiejira: §230 shouldn’t shield Facebook for failure to timely remove hate/bullying speech; constitutional and access‑to‑court challenges | Facebook: §230 bars treating provider as publisher of third‑party content; removal/monitoring decisions are traditional editorial functions immune from suit | CDA §230 bars plaintiff’s claims — Facebook is an interactive computer service, content authored by third party, and plaintiff alleges publisher liability |
| Whether plaintiff’s constitutional challenges survive (due process, access to courts, full faith and credit) | La’Tiejira: §230 as applied denies due process and access to courts; prior Indiana judgment should control | Facebook: no recognized legal theory; private actor reliance on §230 is not state action and plaintiff can sue the actual speaker (Anders) | Court rejected constitutional challenges as meritless and held they do not overcome §230 immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- NCDR, LLC v. Mauze & Bagby, PLLC, 745 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2014) (explaining TCPA anti‑SLAPP framework and burden shift)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for defamation of public figures)
- Doe v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (CDA §230 bars claims arising from publication of user‑generated content)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (claims that treat a provider as publisher of third‑party content are precluded by §230)
- Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Facebook and Zuckerberg entitled to §230 immunity in similar contexts)
- Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC, 755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014) (§230 bars liability for publisher functions such as deciding to publish or retract content)