McCarthy v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Steven M. McCarthy alleged that he had actively used Facebook for many years and posted political cartoons on his account. He alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc. and Mark Zuckerberg disabled his account after he posted two cartoons.

McCarthy asserted claims for violations of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, conversion, trespass to chattels, negligence, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He also sought a declaration that Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional. The defendants moved to dismiss, and they also moved to stay discovery.

Ruling on the State-Law Claims

The court granted Meta’s motion to dismiss the conversion, negligence, trespass-to-chattels, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims.

For conversion, the court found that McCarthy did not allege facts showing that the defendants’ actions were wrongful. For negligence, he did not allege that the defendants owed him a duty of care. For trespass to chattels—a claim alleging intentional interference with personal property—the court found his allegations insufficient because he alleged both that the defendants deprived him of his political cartoons and that he had shared the images through other media.

Regarding the Florida statute claim, the court noted that McCarthy’s response focused only on the alleged unconscionability of Meta’s terms of service. The court also noted that the statute provides a private right of action only for specified violations and concluded that McCarthy had not stated a claim.

Ruling on the First Amendment Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss McCarthy’s First Amendment claims. It explained that the First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private parties, unless the private party can be treated as a government actor in an exceptional case.

The court found that McCarthy did not plausibly allege either required part of that theory: that the challenged conduct resulted from a government-created right or government-imposed rule, or that the defendants qualified as government actors. His allegations about legislators, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urging censorship through threatened legislation lacked facts connecting those alleged threats to his posts. The court also rejected the theory that protections under Section 230 made the defendants federal actors.

Declaratory Judgment Claim

McCarthy did not address his request for a declaration that Section 230(c) is unconstitutional in his opposition. Because the court had disposed of his other claims on separate grounds, it did not reach the constitutional question and dismissed the declaratory-judgment claim on that basis.

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because McCarthy had already amended his claims once as a matter of right and the defendants’ arguments showed that further amendment would be futile. The court therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed McCarthy’s claims with prejudice.

Because of that ruling, the court denied the motion to stay discovery as moot, vacated the case-management conference, directed that a separate judgment be issued, and directed the Clerk to close the file.