Zhang v. Twitter Inc.

Background

Taiming Zhang sued Twitter, Inc. after Twitter permanently suspended his account in 2021. He sought $11 million in damages and later filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The requested order would have required Twitter to reinstate Zhang’s account and permanently suspend the account of another Twitter user.

Zhang alleged that Twitter suspended his account after he sent direct messages urging people to expose the other user’s HIV status. Zhang also alleged that he reported the other user for posting videos that allegedly depicted public sex involving college students whose ages had not been verified. The opinion states that Zhang’s amended complaint was 115 pages in one passage and refers to it as 125 pages in another; the court said it was difficult to discern his precise legal claims. The court identified apparent claims for defamation, fraud, emotional distress, and contract-based claims, as well as claims under federal criminal statutes concerning alleged child sexual exploitation.

Temporary Restraining Order Standard

The court explained that a temporary restraining order is an extraordinary remedy and uses the same standard as a preliminary injunction. The applicant must show a likely chance of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of hardships favors relief, and that relief would serve the public interest.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Zhang had not shown a likely chance of success. Twitter argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, protected it from liability based on suspending Zhang’s account, not suspending the other user’s account, and not taking action against content posted by that user.

Section 230 generally protects providers of interactive computer services from being treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by another content provider. The court found that Twitter is such a provider and that Zhang’s claims appeared to treat Twitter as a publisher based on its decisions about whether to allow, remove, or act on third-party content. The court therefore stated that Twitter was likely immune under Section 230(c)(1) from claims arising from those account and content decisions.

The court also stated that federal criminal statutes generally do not create private rights of action. It further concluded that Section 230’s exception for federal criminal prosecutions did not create an exception to Section 230 immunity for civil claims based on those criminal statutes. The court accordingly found that Zhang had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on his legal claims.

The court separately found that Zhang had not shown likely irreparable harm. Zhang identified emotional distress, alleged harm involving child pornography, possible harm from the other user allegedly scamming people, and defamation. The court noted that Zhang sought monetary damages and that financial injury generally does not constitute irreparable harm when damages could provide an adequate remedy. It also emphasized that Twitter suspended Zhang’s account in 2021, but Zhang did not file the lawsuit until March 2023 and did not seek a temporary restraining order until two months later. The court viewed that delay as indicating a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.

Because the first two factors did not support relief, the court did not address the balance of hardships or the public-interest factor.

Disposition

The court DENIED Zhang’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The previously established briefing schedule on Twitter’s motion to dismiss remained in effect, and the order disposed of Docket Nos. 36 and 38.