History
  • No items yet
midpage
281 F.Supp.3d 874
N.D. Cal.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs (family/first responder to the 7/7/2016 Dallas shooting) sued Twitter, Google (YouTube), and Facebook alleging the platforms provided material support to Hamas by hosting its content and thus helped radicalize Micah Johnson, who killed five officers.
  • FAC alleges Hamas used defendants’ services for recruitment, propaganda, donations, and that defendants profited via targeted ads and (for Google) revenue-sharing; plaintiffs assert this support proximately caused the Dallas attack.
  • Plaintiffs bring claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2333, 2339A, 2339B (material support, aiding/abetting, conspiracy) and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) lack of proximate cause and immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The Court held a hearing and considered similar district-court decisions (Fields, Gonzalez).
  • The Court concluded the FAC fails to plausibly connect Hamas to Johnson’s attack (no allegations Hamas planned, authorized, or directly radicalized him) and that most claims are barred by the CDA; amendment would be futile.
  • Result: Motion to dismiss GRANTED; action DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Proximate cause under §2333 (was defendants' support a cause of the Dallas attack?) Access to platforms substantially enabled Hamas’s radicalization efforts; but-for/ substantial-factor not required; JASTA’s purpose broadens liability. Plaintiffs do not plausibly link Hamas to Johnson; causal chain too attenuated. Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege Hamas committed, planned, authorized, or was a substantial factor in the attack.
Scope of CDA §230 immunity (can platforms be treated as publishers of third-party content?) Claims target providers’ provision of accounts/infrastructure and revenue-sharing, not merely publication; JASTA's purpose undermines §230. §230 protects interactive computer services for third-party content; providing accounts, ads, or removing/reallowing accounts still falls within publisher protections; JASTA did not repeal §230. Dismissed — CDA bars most if not all claims; JASTA does not implicitly repeal §230.
Content-developer exception to §230 (did defendants materially develop unlawful content by targeted ads or revenue-sharing?) Targeted ads and alleged revenue-sharing made defendants partly responsible for content and funded Hamas. Ads are neutral tools; plaintiffs do not allege ads made content unlawful or that Google actually shared ad revenue with Hamas. Dismissed — plaintiffs fail to allege defendants materially contributed to unlawful content; court did not decide revenue-sharing immunity question.
Emotional distress standing for non-family first-responder (Pennie) Pennie suffered severe emotional distress as a first responder and knew the victims. Pennie lacks familial relationship and did not directly witness the killing; damages insufficiently pleaded. Dismissed — claim fails on causation and CDA grounds; court also questioned Pennie’s emotional-distress theory.

Key Cases Cited

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (labels/conclusions insufficient; plausibility required)
  • Holmes v. Sec. Inv’r Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 ("by reason of" requires direct relation for proximate cause analysis)
  • Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.) (material-support liability and proximate-cause discussion in terrorism cases)
  • Roommates.com, LLC v. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (§230 immunity; definition of "development" for content-creator exception)
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (repeals by implication disfavored)
  • Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (§230 bars claims based on terrorist organizations’ use of social platforms)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Pennie v. Twitter, Inc.
Court Name: District Court, N.D. California
Date Published: Dec 4, 2017
Citations: 281 F.Supp.3d 874; 3:17-cv-00230
Docket Number: 3:17-cv-00230
Court Abbreviation: N.D. Cal.
Log In