Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC

Background

Dawn Dangaard, Kelly Gilbert, and Jennifer Allbaugh sued Instagram, LLC; Facebook Operations, LLC; Fenix Internet, LLC; Fenix International, Ltd.; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Leonid Radvinsky; and John Does 1–10. The order addresses defendants’ motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

Court’s concerns

The court said the plaintiffs would be allowed to replead, meaning to file an amended complaint, and directed them to plead their best case. It identified several problems:

- The plaintiffs referred to a BBC news article but did not include the article in the complaint. They also referred at the hearing to confidential sources that were not mentioned in the complaint. The court said the plaintiffs should include information supporting reasonable inferences of misconduct. - Many allegations were made “on information and belief.” The court explained that this type of allegation requires factual support making the alleged misconduct plausible when the information is not uniquely controlled by defendants. It gave as an example allegations about adult entertainment performers who promoted content only on OnlyFans or Radvinsky-affiliated sites and allegedly appeared unaffected by automated takedowns and reduced traffic. - The allegations of harm were too vague. The court noted that Dangaard alleged that her account was deleted and later reinstated, but did not specify when, and alleged that reduced Instagram viewership adversely affected her revenue without providing more detail. The court said the other two plaintiffs made similar insufficiently specific allegations.

Required amendment and schedule

The plaintiffs were directed to identify by name all adult entertainment platforms allegedly included in Meta defendants’ terrorist lists and to address the other objections raised by defendants. The court said another pleading would likely not be allowed.

The plaintiffs had to file an amended complaint within two weeks of the order. Defendants had two weeks after that filing to refile their motions to dismiss; plaintiffs had two weeks to oppose; and defendants had one week to reply. A hearing was set for November 16, 2022. The court stated that personal jurisdiction would not need to be re-briefed because that issue was scheduled for separate briefing after jurisdictional discovery.

Disposition

The order permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and set a schedule for renewed motions to dismiss. It does not expressly state that the existing motions to dismiss were granted or denied. The matter therefore remained subject to further pleading and motion practice.