Hart v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

Justin Hart sued Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Management and Budget. Hart alleged that Facebook and Twitter flagged, restricted, or locked his accounts because of posts about COVID-19 and masks. He claimed that the companies violated the First Amendment because President Biden and Surgeon General Murthy allegedly acted jointly with them. He also asserted California constitutional, contract, and tort claims against Facebook and Twitter.

Facebook and Twitter moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They also moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides a procedure for challenging claims targeting protected speech or petitioning activity. The federal defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that Hart lacked standing. The order did not address Hart’s Freedom of Information Act claim against the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget because those defendants had not moved to dismiss.

Claims Against Facebook and Twitter

The court held that Hart’s First Amendment claim required him to plausibly allege that Facebook and Twitter engaged in state action—conduct by private parties that can legally be treated as government conduct. The court explained that private internet platforms generally are not government actors merely because they host speech.

Hart relied on joint action and government-coercion theories. The court rejected both. It found that Facebook and Twitter’s own policies and explanations plausibly showed that they acted under their platform rules. It also noted that much of Facebook’s conduct occurred before the federal officials allegedly began communicating with the companies. The court found that the officials’ general recommendations and advisory materials were too vague and lacked a specific connection to Hart’s posts. Hart did not allege that the officials knew about his particular Facebook post or Twitter message, so the complaint did not show a shared agreement about the actions taken against him.

The court also rejected the coercion theory. It found that general recommendations, an advisory document, and President Biden’s statement that social media companies were “killing people” did not plausibly show that the government forced Facebook or Twitter to act against Hart. Hart also did not specifically allege that the federal defendants ordered or coerced action concerning his accounts. The court therefore dismissed Hart’s First Amendment claim against Facebook and Twitter.

After dismissing the only federal claim against Facebook and Twitter, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hart’s California claims. Those claims included a California constitutional free-speech claim, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with contract, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The court stated that the California-law issues were better addressed initially by a state court.

Because it declined jurisdiction over the California claims, the court did not decide Facebook’s or Twitter’s anti-SLAPP motions.

Claims Against the Federal Defendants

The court held that Hart lacked Article III standing to pursue his claims against President Biden and Surgeon General Murthy. Standing requires an injury, a fairly traceable connection between the injury and the defendants’ conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. The court found that Hart’s allegations did not plausibly connect the federal defendants’ conduct to Facebook’s and Twitter’s decisions about his accounts. It also found that an order directed at the federal defendants would not likely change the companies’ conduct toward Hart. The court granted the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Charles R. Breyer found that amendment would be futile because Hart could not plausibly allege state action by Facebook or Twitter and could not establish federal jurisdiction over the claims against the federal defendants. The court granted the motions to dismiss without leave to amend. The order stated that this was without prejudice to Hart bringing his state claims in state court. The court did not reach the anti-SLAPP motions, and the order did not decide the remaining Freedom of Information Act claim against the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget.