3:23-cv-00116
N.D. Cal.Jan 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Joshua and Alexander Newton sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), alleging breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Their claims stemmed from Meta’s refusal to publish their advertisements based on Facebook's hate speech policy in its Community Standards.
- The plaintiffs had been given an opportunity to amend their complaint after a prior dismissal; the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) followed.
- Meta moved to dismiss the SAC with prejudice under Rules 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The court decided to resolve the motion based on the written record without oral argument and ultimately dismissed the case.
- The court denied leave to amend, finding plaintiffs had not remedied deficiencies identified in the earlier dismissal order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 230 immunity | Not directly addressed; contract/IIED claims should survive | Facebook's decision not to publish ads is protected by Section 230 | Claims preempted by Section 230, as they challenge publishing decisions |
| Breach of contract | Facebook violated specific promises in its policies | No specific promise alleged; policies reserve broad discretion | SAC fails to allege a specific, enforceable promise |
| Fraud | Facebook’s content moderation policy was false | No plausible allegation Facebook knowingly published a false policy | No plausible fraud; policy did not guarantee zero hate speech, |
| reliance not adequately pleaded | |||
| Leave to amend | (Implicit) Further amendments could cure deficiencies | Plaintiffs failed to correct previously identified deficiencies | Dismissal without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing publishing decisions as immune under Section 230)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (addressing requirements for contract claims not preempted by Section 230)
- Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to cure deficiencies after multiple amendments indicates futility)