Maffick LLC v. Facebook Inc.

Background

Maffick LLC asked for a temporary restraining order requiring Facebook, Inc. to remove the “Russia state-controlled media” label from Maffick’s “In the Now,” “Waste-Ed,” and “Soapbox” pages. A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief issued before a court can fully consider a request for a preliminary injunction. Because Facebook received notice of the request, the court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction.

Maffick sought immediate relief on four claims: libel under California Civil Code section 45, false designation under section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. Maffick argued that the label was false and that it had caused a 50 percent drop in monthly monetization, along with substantial decreases in viewership and reach.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Maffick had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of hardships favored Maffick, and that an injunction served the public interest. The court said the merits question was central because all four claims depended on proving that the label was false.

The court found that Maffick had not met that threshold. Even assuming the label was a factual statement rather than an opinion, the evidence showed at most that its truth was disputed. Facebook presented evidence that a prior entity called Maffick Media GmbH had acknowledged significant ties to the Russian government; that Maffick’s three Facebook channels were virtually identical to channels previously sponsored by Maffick Media under the same names; and that Maffick continued using Maffick Media email addresses for those channels. Facebook also presented evidence that Ruptly GmbH, which Maffick’s CEO identified as a part-owner of Maffick Media, was a subsidiary of RT, which was funded by the Russian government.

Maffick primarily relied on declarations from its CEO, Anissa Naouai, stating that Maffick LLC was separate from Maffick Media and Ruptly and was not controlled by the Russian government or Russian state entities. The court viewed those statements as conclusory and insufficient to show a likelihood of success, particularly in light of Facebook’s largely undisputed counter-evidence. The court emphasized that it was not finding that Facebook had proved truth as a defense or that Maffick could not ultimately prevail.

The court also discussed the other factors. It found Maffick’s claimed monetary losses did not ordinarily qualify as irreparable harm and that Maffick had not shown a separate reputational injury that could not be compensated later. The balance of hardships favored Facebook, if anything, and the court noted a public interest in Facebook’s notices helping users understand the sources of news content.

Facebook argued that the requested order would be an unconstitutional prior restraint—a court order restricting speech before a final decision. The court took that concern into account but did not formally decide it. The court also did not decide Facebook’s argument that the label was a non-actionable opinion because those issues were unnecessary to resolve the temporary-relief request.

Disposition

Judge Donato denied Maffick’s request for a temporary restraining order. The court did not dismiss the case or decide the ultimate merits of Maffick’s claims. The court stated that the litigation would continue, noted that discovery and trial preparation had begun, and said a scheduling order would set trial to begin on December 14, 2020.