Sikhs for Justice "SFJ", Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
144 F. Supp. 3d 1088
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), a New York non-profit, operated a Facebook page used for political and human-rights advocacy directed at issues in India.
- Facebook blocked access to the SFJ Page in India on or about May 1, 2015; SFJ requested restoration and an explanation but Facebook did not restore access.
- SFJ sued Facebook in federal court asserting a federal claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000a) for discriminatory denial of a "public accommodation," plus three California state-law claims (Unruh Act, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant).
- Facebook moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 and the First Amendment bar SFJ’s claims; Facebook also moved to strike state claims under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute.
- The court held Facebook is an interactive computer service, the SFJ Page was content provided by SFJ (an information content provider), and SFJ’s Title II claim sought to treat Facebook as a publisher for removing content — conduct immunized by § 230.
- Court dismissed the federal Title II claim with prejudice (futility of amendment) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice; anti‑SLAPP motion and judicial‑notice request were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II claim survives given CDA § 230 | SFJ: Facebook unlawfully discriminated by blocking SFJ Page in India and must be liable under Title II | Facebook: § 230 immunizes interactive computer services from liability for decisions to publish or remove third‑party content | Held: § 230 bars the Title II claim; dismissal with prejudice (amendment futile) |
| Whether Facebook is an "interactive computer service" under § 230 | SFJ did not dispute status | Facebook: clearly an interactive computer service enabling user content | Held: Facebook is an interactive computer service |
| Whether the SFJ Page is "information provided by another information content provider" | SFJ: Page created by SFJ, not third‑party content (argues this supports liability) | Facebook: SFJ is the content creator; the Page is third‑party content relative to Facebook | Held: SFJ is the information content provider; Facebook did not create/develop the Page; § 230 applies |
| Whether plaintiff’s claim treats Facebook as a publisher/speaker | SFJ: seeks explanation, damages, and restoration, framed as non‑publisher discrimination claim | Facebook: claim seeks to hold it liable for removing/blocking content — quintessential publisher conduct | Held: Claim necessarily treats Facebook as publisher; therefore § 230 precludes liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (tort claims that rest on a defendant’s decision to remove or publish third‑party content are barred by § 230)
- Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 230 immunity applies when the provider is not also an information content provider; immunity covers removal decisions)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes when an interactive service also becomes an information content provider)
- Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1222 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (discussing § 230 immunity for interactive computer services)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to an assumption of truth on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)