Loveland v. Facebook

Background

Plaintiffs Sally Loveland, Sharon Cheatle, Janine Cortese, Tyler Boyle, and Steve McCann alleged that they used Facebook to share information about COVID-19, including information concerning hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, vitamin D, treatments, research, and vaccines. They alleged that Facebook and the other defendants demoted or banned content connected to the Facebook group Hydroxychloroquine Access Now, removed search features, and placed warning labels on posts describing them as false, fake, misinformation, or hoaxes.

The complaint asserted claims involving the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments; monopolization and attempted monopolization; wire fraud under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; libel; breach of contract; promissory estoppel; and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought damages and other relief.

Facebook moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the other named defendants joined that motion. The Facebook Terms of Service stated that claims arising from or relating to Facebook’s terms or products would be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County, California. The plaintiffs acknowledged that they agreed to Facebook’s Terms of Service when they created their accounts.

The Court’s Analysis

The court held that the forum-selection clause was valid and enforceable. It rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the clause was an unfair contract of adhesion or resulted from fraud or overreach. The court also found that enforcing the clause would not deprive the plaintiffs of their opportunity to litigate the case.

The court held that the claims fell within the clause’s scope because they arose from the plaintiffs’ use of Facebook’s platform. Because the parties had agreed to the forum, the court did not separately weigh private convenience interests. It considered public-interest factors and found that they supported transfer, citing Facebook’s location in California, the defendants’ preference for California, the location of lead plaintiff Sally Loveland in California, the lack of a shown docket disadvantage, and the Northern District of California’s ability to hear the case.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the COVID-19 pandemic created exceptional circumstances requiring the case to remain in Pennsylvania. It found no basis to conclude that the California court could not address the alleged constitutional violations or that Facebook’s local presence would improperly influence that court.

Disposition

The court granted Facebook’s motion to transfer and transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It declined to sever and retain the claims against Mark Zuckerberg, FactCheck.org, Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc., and Lead Stories, LLC, even though those defendants were not parties to the Facebook Terms of Service. The court found that the claims against those defendants were closely connected to the claims against Facebook and that separate litigation could require overlapping evidence and witnesses or produce inconsistent results.

The transfer ruling did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying constitutional, antitrust, fraud, or state-law claims.