Newton v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Joshua and Alexander Newton alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc., referred to in the opinion as Facebook, prevented them from advertising their feature film, Beautiful Blue Eyes, on Facebook. The film concerns a man confronting a Nazi responsible for murdering members of his family, and the film’s title refers to the eye color of a child killed by Nazis.

The Newtons alleged that Facebook had updated its Community Standards in October 2020 to address Holocaust disinformation, then misclassified their film as hate speech because of its title. They alleged that the advertising ban caused the film to underperform at the box office, resulting in lost ticket sales and emotional distress. Their complaint asserted breach of contract, fraud and detrimental reliance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Section 230 ruling

Meta argued that Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act protected it from the Newtons’ civil claims because the claims concerned decisions made in its role as a publisher. The parties agreed that Facebook was an interactive computer service provider and that the complaint concerned content created by the Newtons, not by Facebook.

The court held that Section 230 required dismissal of the contract and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. Those claims were based entirely on Facebook’s decision not to post the Newtons’ content. The court treated that decision as a publishing decision covered by Section 230 immunity. It also rejected the Newtons’ reliance on Facebook’s general Community Standards, explaining that the complaint did not allege a specific promise comparable to a promise that would waive or limit the platform’s immunity.

The court did not address Meta’s other challenges to the contract and emotional-distress claims. Although the court said amendment appeared unlikely to change the Section 230 result, it could not say with certainty that amendment would be futile. The Newtons were therefore permitted to try again.

Fraud ruling

The court dismissed the fraud claim under Rules 8 and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide enough factual content to make a claim plausible. Rule 9(b) requires fraud to be described with particularity, including the circumstances of the alleged misconduct.

The court said the Newtons had not supplied specific facts plausibly showing that Facebook’s Community Standards or related statements were false. Their assertion that the statements were false and misleading was treated as a legal conclusion rather than a factual allegation. The complaint also did not provide enough facts suggesting that Facebook knew the statements were false when made.

The court further found inadequate allegations concerning intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and damages. The complaint did not explain what statements the producers or media buyers saw, why reliance on those statements was justified, or what actions they took because of them. The court deferred deciding whether Section 230 would independently bar the fraud claim until the Newtons alleged a plausible fraud claim.

The court noted that, if the Newtons amended their complaint, they might need to address Facebook’s Advertising Policies. Those policies stated that Facebook reserved the right to reject, approve, or remove any advertisement for any reason in its sole discretion, and the court said the policies could be considered at this stage because they were incorporated into the applicable terms and the complaint.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. An amended complaint consistent with the order could be filed by September 29, 2023. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in dismissal of the case under Rule 41(b). The order was signed by Judge James Donato on September 6, 2023.