Trump v. Twitter, Inc

Background

Donald J. Trump, the American Conservative Union, and five individuals sued Twitter, Inc. and Jack Dorsey on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of Twitter users who had allegedly been removed from or restricted on the platform. The plaintiffs asserted four claims: (1) a First Amendment violation; (2) a request for a declaration that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional; (3) deceptive and misleading practices under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and (4) a violation of Florida’s Stop Social Media Censorship Act. Twitter moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim.

The amended complaint alleged that Twitter suspended or restricted the plaintiffs’ accounts for reasons including alleged incitement of violence, vaccine-related posts, posts supporting Republican candidates and Donald J. Trump, and messages concerning COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The plaintiffs alleged that members of Congress affiliated with the Democratic Party coerced Twitter into taking those actions, including through threats involving regulation, antitrust action, and Section 230.

First Amendment claim

The court dismissed the First Amendment claim. Because Twitter is a private company, the First Amendment generally does not govern its decisions. The plaintiffs therefore needed to plausibly allege that Twitter was acting as the government under the state-action doctrine, a legal rule that can treat private conduct as governmental when the connection between the government and the challenged conduct is sufficiently close.

The court held that the alleged statements by members of Congress and statements at a congressional hearing were not enough to establish state action. The allegations described general criticism, possible future legislation, and congressional investigation rather than a specific government rule, order, or threat of punishment that caused Twitter to close the accounts. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ theories that the government encouraged or jointly participated in Twitter’s actions through Section 230. The first claim was dismissed.

Section 230 claim

The court dismissed the claim seeking a declaration that Section 230 was unconstitutional for lack of standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

The court found that the plaintiffs offered only a vague and speculative allegation that Twitter would not have removed their accounts without the immunity provided by Section 230. The complaint did not provide facts showing an actual injury caused by Section 230, so the court declined to allow the declaratory-judgment claim to proceed.

Florida consumer-protection claim

The court dismissed the claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Twitter’s terms of service contained a California choice-of-law provision, and the plaintiffs did not dispute that the terms were a valid contract or that they included that provision.

Applying California choice-of-law principles, the court concluded that California had a substantial relationship to the case because Twitter had its principal place of business there. The plaintiffs did not show that Florida had a materially greater interest or that applying California law would violate a fundamental Florida policy. The court therefore found no sufficient reason to disregard the contractual choice of California law and apply the Florida statute.

The court also observed that the terms of service expressly allowed Twitter to suspend or terminate an account for any or no reason and to remove or refuse to distribute content. The court said these provisions further undermined the argument that Twitter had engaged in deceptive conduct.

Florida social-media claim

The court dismissed the claim under Florida’s Stop Social Media Censorship Act without prejudice. The court noted that only Dominick Latella was alleged to have been a Florida resident with an active Twitter account when the statute took effect on July 1, 2021. The other account actions described in the complaint occurred before that date, making the statute’s possible application unclear.

The court also noted that a different federal court had enjoined Florida officials from enforcing the statute after concluding that it violated the First Amendment and was preempted by Section 230. The court declined the plaintiffs’ request to disregard that decision while its appeal was pending.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. It allowed the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint consistent with the order by May 27, 2022, without adding new claims or defendants unless the court gave permission. The court stated that further opportunities to amend were unlikely to be granted.