Baldwin Kennedy v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Ronda Baldwin-Kennedy, representing herself, and two campaign committees initially filed the case against Meta Platforms, Inc., Hoang Hai Mobile, and unidentified defendants. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California by agreement of the parties.

Baldwin-Kennedy alleged that Hoang Hai Mobile and unidentified defendants gained unauthorized access to her Facebook account and campaign pages and locked her out. She alleged that Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, did not adequately help her regain access. She also alleged that Meta denied verification of an Instagram account that remained under her control, while allowing white political opponents to receive verification, and that this was racially discriminatory. She sought $300,000 for unspecified business and property injuries and $1 million in punitive damages.

Meta moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court treated Facebook’s Terms of Service and Instagram’s Terms of Use as part of the complaint because the complaint relied on them.

Terms-based limitations

The court held that the terms disclaimed guarantees that the services would be safe, secure, error-free, or free from disruptions, and disclaimed responsibility for third-party conduct. The terms also limited liability and capped aggregate liability at the greater of $100 or the amount paid to Meta during the previous twelve months.

The court granted Meta’s motion to dismiss claims to the extent they were based on Meta’s alleged failure to keep the account secure or free from disruptions caused by third parties. The court identified the affected theories as negligence, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, the Stored Communications Act, trespass to chattels, fraud and misrepresentation, privacy violations, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and election interference.

Failure to state a claim

The court separately concluded that the complaint did not plausibly state claims against Meta:

- Negligence: The terms did not promise that Meta would help restore access to an account or do so within a particular time. Baldwin-Kennedy did not identify a legal duty requiring Meta to restore access. - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: The complaint alleged that third parties, not Meta, accessed the account without authorization. - Breach of contract: Baldwin-Kennedy did not identify a contractual provision requiring Meta to prevent unauthorized access or restore access after a breach. Unwritten user expectations could not override the express terms. - Stored Communications Act: The complaint did not allege that Meta itself intentionally accessed stored communications without authorization or exceeded authorized access. - Trespass to chattels: The complaint did not adequately allege that Meta intentionally interfered with possession of personal property. - Fraud and misrepresentation: The complaint did not allege the required facts showing a misrepresentation by Meta, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage. Arguments in the opposition brief could not amend the complaint. - Privacy violations: The complaint did not allege that Meta itself intruded into a private matter in a highly offensive way. - Negligent infliction of emotional distress: Under California law, this theory depends on negligence. Because Baldwin-Kennedy did not identify a breached legal duty, this claim also failed. - Election interference: The court found no common-law election-interference claim and held that 22 U.S.C. § 2708(k)(4) does not create a private right to sue for foreign election interference. The court also rejected theories raised for the first time in the opposition brief. - Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: The court found the racial-discrimination allegation conclusory and held that Baldwin-Kennedy provided no relevant authority showing that Facebook and Instagram are places of public accommodation covered by Title II.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Meta’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court denied Baldwin-Kennedy’s motion for a preliminary injunction because she had not stated a plausible claim for relief.

The court gave Baldwin-Kennedy one opportunity to file an amended complaint by November 25, 2024. The opinion does not state that the dismissal of Meta’s motion was with or without prejudice.

Hoang Hai Mobile had not appeared, and Baldwin-Kennedy had not filed proof of service for Hoang Hai Mobile or any newly identified defendants. The court ordered Baldwin-Kennedy to show cause, by November 15, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice as to Hoang Hai Mobile and the remaining unidentified defendants for failure to serve them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).