Zimmerman v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Facebook, Inc., and other defendants. The complaint included privacy-related claims based on the alleged unlawful use, disclosure, and monetization of Facebook user information, as well as claims concerning Facebook’s decision to block access to the plaintiffs’ profiles.

The court had previously given the plaintiffs a choice: they could consolidate their privacy-related claims with the lead case in a multidistrict litigation proceeding, or voluntarily dismiss those claims and proceed only with claims concerning blocked accounts. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the privacy-related claims without prejudice but later included privacy-related allegations and claims in their amended complaint.

Claims Concerning Blocked Accounts

The court held that the claims relating to Facebook’s decision to block access to the plaintiffs’ profiles were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law generally protects interactive computer-service providers from liability for decisions about removing or blocking content provided by users. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that a social-media platform’s decision to delete or block access to an individual user profile falls within that protection.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims insofar as they challenged the blocking of their accounts. Facebook was not a state actor, meaning its conduct was not fairly attributable to the government. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Facebook had become a government-like actor by operating a widely used online forum or through alleged joint action with government entities. The court further held that the plaintiffs’ claims based on allegedly treasonous conduct failed because there is no private cause of action for treason.

Because the account-related claims failed as a matter of law and amendment would be futile, the court dismissed those claims with prejudice.

Privacy Claims and Disposition

The court determined that the remaining claims were privacy-related and overlapped substantially with claims in the lead multidistrict case. The court therefore stayed those claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). A stay pauses further action; it does not resolve or invalidate the claims. The plaintiffs may later seek to lift the stay after the multidistrict case has been adjudicated or resolved.

The court stated that, if a class is certified in the lead case, the plaintiffs may have an opportunity to opt out and pursue their claims individually, although their claims would remain stayed until the lead case is resolved or adjudicated.

Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint granted in part. The account-blocking claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the overlapping privacy claims were stayed.