Yuksel v. Twitter Incorporated

Background

Edip Yuksel, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Twitter, Inc. after Twitter permanently suspended his account on April 6, 2020. Yuksel alleged that Twitter suspended the account without giving a specific reason or an opportunity to defend himself. He suspected the suspension was connected to his criticism of the ruling political party in Turkey and alleged that Twitter suspended the account to appease Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Yuksel alleged that the suspension destroyed intellectual content, cut him off from more than 142,000 followers and contacts, and harmed his public image and reputation. He sought reinstatement of his account, $142 million for breach of contract and punitive damages, and other relief. His complaint also appeared to assert a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO.

Procedural Rulings

Twitter moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court found the matter suitable for decision without oral argument.

The court granted Twitter’s request for judicial notice of five publicly available webpages and versions of Twitter’s terms of service. Judicial notice permits a court to consider facts from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be disputed. The court also granted Twitter’s motion to strike Yuksel’s second response because it was an unauthorized additional filing.

Section 230

The court held that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunizes Twitter from Yuksel’s claims. That provision generally protects an interactive computer service from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another user.

The court found that the three requirements for the protection were met. First, Twitter is an interactive computer service provider. Second, the relevant information was provided by Yuksel rather than Twitter. Third, Yuksel sought to hold Twitter liable for its decision to exclude his content and suspend his account. The court characterized those decisions as traditional publishing or editorial functions protected by Section 230.

The court rejected Yuksel’s argument that a federal-criminal-law exception applied because he referred to RICO. It explained that the exception for federal criminal prosecutions does not create an exception for civil claims based on federal criminal statutes, including civil RICO claims. The court also rejected the argument that contract claims are exempt from Section 230, explaining that Section 230 contains no such exception and that courts apply the protection to contract claims based on protected publishing activity.

Failure to State Plausible Claims

The court stated that dismissal was also required because Yuksel failed to plausibly allege his claims, even if Section 230 did not apply.

Breach of contract. Yuksel disavowed a breach-of-contract claim in his opposition, stating that he did not claim a breach of contract between himself and Twitter. The court therefore dismissed that claim. In addition, the court held that any contract claim based on Twitter’s terms of service failed because those terms allowed Twitter to remove or refuse to distribute content and, under the current terms, to suspend or terminate an account for any or no reason.

Yuksel also asked the court to declare Twitter’s terms of service void and invalid because they permitted arbitrary account deletion. The court explained that breach of contract was the only contract theory alleged in the complaint and that, on a motion to dismiss, the court could not consider new allegations raised only in an opposition. The court further stated that Section 230 would bar the unpleaded theory as well.

RICO. The court held that Yuksel’s apparent RICO claim was inadequately pleaded. A civil RICO claim requires allegations of conduct by an enterprise, through a pattern of racketeering activity, causing injury to the plaintiff’s business or property. The court found that Yuksel did not identify the enterprise, a pattern, racketeering activity, or qualifying injury. It also found his allegations about Twitter acting with dictators conclusory and insufficient under the federal pleading standards.

Disposition

The court granted Twitter’s motion to dismiss. It concluded that Section 230 immunized Twitter from Yuksel’s claims and that his contract and RICO theories also failed to meet the pleading requirements. Because amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered that judgment be entered.