Rogalinski v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Richard Rogalinski alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc. violated the First Amendment by censoring his Facebook posts about COVID-19. He also purported to represent a class of Facebook users whose COVID-19 comments were allegedly censored. The complaint alleged that Meta appended “missing context” warnings to two posts and later labeled a post promoting hydroxychloroquine as “false information” and hid it from public view.

Rogalinski alleged that Meta acted in concert with the Biden Administration. He relied in part on statements by White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki about regular communication with social-media platforms, flagging problematic posts, and recommendations for addressing misinformation.

Legal Standard

Meta moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognizable claim supported by enough facts to make liability plausible. The court generally assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true at this stage but does not accept unsupported legal conclusions as facts.

State Action

The court explained that a private company hosting speech on the internet ordinarily is not a government actor subject to the First Amendment. A private party’s conduct can sometimes count as government action, but Rogalinski needed to plausibly allege that the government was sufficiently connected to, involved in, or responsible for Meta’s challenged decisions.

Rogalinski relied on two theories. Under the nexus theory, he argued that the connection between the government and Meta was close enough to treat Meta’s conduct as governmental. Under the joint-action theory, he argued that the government and Meta acted together.

The court rejected both theories. It reasoned that Meta’s own misinformation policies provided a plausible explanation for its actions, and all of the specific actions against Rogalinski’s posts occurred before Psaki’s July 15, 2021 press conference. The court also found no allegation that the government specifically focused on Rogalinski or directed Meta’s decisions about his posts. Even if the government supplied information to Meta, the court stated, providing information alone did not make Meta’s later decisions government action.

The court also rejected Rogalinski’s reliance on statements concerning twelve other individuals. It concluded that he could not represent those individuals without having a viable claim of his own, and that the allegations did not identify those individuals or show that they were treated like Rogalinski.

Disposition

The court concluded that Rogalinski failed to plausibly plead government action under either the joint-action or nexus theories, so his First Amendment claim failed as a matter of law. Because the court determined that amendment would be futile, it denied leave to amend and granted Meta’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.