Mann v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Gerald Mann filed claims against Meta Platforms Inc. for breach of contract and professional negligence. He alleged that, while using Facebook, he received invitations to groups involving methamphetamine and disturbing images. Mann alleged that this conduct violated language in Meta’s terms of service concerning unlawful use, safety, and the integrity of the community. He described himself as a recovered drug addict.

Mann also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court reviewed the application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and found that he satisfied the financial eligibility requirement.

Fee application

The court granted Mann’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It explained that this grant did not mean the complaint could continue automatically. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a case filed without payment of the filing fee if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also explained that a dismissal under this screening provision would not be a decision on the merits and that the same complaint could still be filed by paying the filing fee.

Possible protection under Section 230

The court said Mann’s allegations appeared to seek to hold Meta responsible for third-party content displayed on Facebook. It therefore concluded that the claims may be barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. That statute generally prevents an interactive computer service from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by another content provider and bars inconsistent state-law liability.

The court described three requirements for Section 230 protection: (1) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the information at issue was supplied by another information content provider; and (3) the complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable as the publisher or speaker of that information. The court stated that courts regularly find Meta and Facebook to be interactive computer service providers. Although Mann did not identify who created the offending material, the court said he appeared to allege that other Facebook users created it. The court also explained that a claim based on a duty to review, remove, or better moderate third-party content generally treats the defendant as a publisher and is barred by Section 230.

The court recognized that Section 230 does not necessarily bar claims based on a separate contractual promise or another duty independent of the defendant’s role as a publisher. But it found that the terms-of-service language quoted by Mann was not a promise by Meta to take a particular action. The language instead appeared to govern Facebook users and did not promise Mann that Meta would remove the content. The court said that, unless Mann could identify specific promises in the terms of service or elsewhere establishing a contractual or legal duty, his theory would be based on Meta’s failure to remove third-party content and would be barred by Section 230.

Order to show cause

The court ordered Mann to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed. The order states that, if Mann failed to respond by the stated deadline, the court might prepare a report and recommendation to a United States district judge recommending dismissal. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.

Judge

Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu issued the order. The supplied case information identifies Vince Chhabria as the judge, but the opinion text is signed by Donna M. Ryu.