Huber v. Biden

Background

Colleen Huber sued Joseph Biden Jr., in his official capacity as President of the United States, Twitter, Inc., and Jack Dorsey. The lawsuit followed Twitter’s suspension and permanent termination of Huber’s account after she posted information about COVID-19 vaccines that Twitter determined violated its policy against misleading and potentially harmful COVID-19 information.

Huber alleged that the White House and Twitter acted together to suppress speech that conflicted with the Biden administration’s views about COVID-19 vaccinations. Her First Amended Complaint asserted two claims: a First Amendment freedom-of-speech claim and a Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim. Huber also argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment because it allegedly allowed Twitter to restrict speech and preempted the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

First Amendment Claim

The court explained that the First Amendment generally restricts government action, not the actions of private companies. Because Huber conceded that Twitter was private, she needed to plausibly allege that Twitter’s conduct was fairly attributable to the government. She relied on the joint-action theory, which can require allegations of either a conspiracy or a private party’s willful participation in joint action with the government.

The court held that Huber did not plausibly allege either form of joint action. Her allegations and the news articles she cited suggested, at most, that the government and social-media companies shared a general interest in reducing COVID-19 misinformation. They did not identify a specific agreement or meeting of the minds to violate Huber’s constitutional rights, government directions concerning the suspension of her account, or facts showing that Twitter failed to exercise independent judgment.

The court also found that Twitter had independent grounds for suspending Huber’s account: its User Agreement authorized suspension or termination for violating Twitter’s rules and policies, and Twitter determined that Huber’s post violated its COVID-19 policy. The court therefore concluded that Huber had not plausibly alleged that Twitter acted as a government actor.

The court separately rejected Huber’s theory that Section 230 itself supplied an independent basis for her First Amendment claim. It reasoned that Section 230 protects editorial discretion across a broad range of content rather than singling out one type of speech for private censorship. The court also found that the Unruh Civil Rights Act does not protect speech based on viewpoint or content. The court declined to decide whether Section 230 is constitutional because it could resolve Huber’s claims on non-constitutional grounds.

The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amendment claim without leave to amend, finding that further amendment would be futile.

Fifth Amendment Claim

Huber’s Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim was based on the same alleged conduct. She alleged that defendants allowed people with favored views to use Twitter while restricting people with less favored or controversial views.

The court held that this claim failed because Huber had not plausibly alleged that Twitter was acting as a government actor. The court also noted that, even if Twitter’s conduct had qualified as government action, Huber had not alleged specific facts showing discrimination beyond conclusory statements. The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the Fifth Amendment claim without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 48 and 49, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.