King v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

The court had previously granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss King’s claims, rejecting them with prejudice but giving King limited permission to add one theory: that Facebook retaliated against him by removing posts or suspending accounts because he criticized Facebook. King filed a post-judgment amended complaint on September 25, 2019. Facebook then moved to dismiss again.

The amended complaint asserted three claims: (1) retaliatory breach of contract based on California’s implied duty of good faith and fair dealing against Facebook; (2) unlawful cancellation of content and chilling of speech under the First Amendment against Facebook; and (3) defamation against Jennifer Marie Malone and unidentified defendants.

Contract Claim

King alleged that Facebook blocked some content or shut down accounts after he threatened to sue or sued Facebook, and that Facebook acted in retaliation for posts critical of Facebook. The court held that King failed to identify the specific contract provision that Facebook allegedly breached.

The court also considered the Facebook Terms of Use, which King relied on as the contractual basis for his claim. It explained that the Terms restricted users’ conduct but did not create affirmative obligations requiring Facebook to keep particular content or accounts available. The Terms also stated that Facebook could remove content and suspend or block accounts in its discretion, including for any reason or no reason. Because the alleged conduct was permitted by the Terms, the court found no plausible basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

The court separately explained that breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are distinct claims. It held that the implied-covenant claim failed for the same reasons: King did not identify a violated contractual provision, and the Terms expressly allowed the conduct he challenged.

First Amendment Claim

The court stated that King had not been given permission in the prior order to add a First Amendment claim, so the claim was not properly part of the case and the court would not address it. In a footnote, the court stated that even if it addressed the claim, it would fail because Facebook was not a state actor and was not performing a function exclusively reserved for the government.

Disposition

The court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Facebook from the case with prejudice. The remaining defendants were Malone and unidentified defendants whom King was apparently attempting to identify through limited discovery. The only claim against those defendants was defamation.

The court stated that diversity jurisdiction was not apparent from the amended complaint and that it was not inclined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the defamation claim after the federal claims against Facebook had been dismissed with prejudice. It ordered King to show cause—that is, to explain—why the remaining defamation claim should not be dismissed. King was ordered to respond by January 6, 2020, addressing the status of discovery, service on Malone and any identified defendant, and any reason the remaining claim should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion did not itself dismiss the defamation claim.