Newton v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Joshua and Alexander Newton filed a second amended complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. The claims were for breach of contract, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They arose from Meta’s decision not to publish the Newtons’ advertisements under Facebook’s hate-speech policy.

The court had previously dismissed the complaint but allowed the Newtons to amend it. Meta then moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6). Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a sufficient statement of the claim, Rule 9(b) imposes heightened pleading requirements for fraud, and Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim.

Contract and Emotional-Distress Claims

The court held that the second amended complaint did not add facts that avoided the problem identified in the earlier dismissal order. The court concluded that the contract and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protected the challenged publishing decision. The claims were based on Facebook’s decision not to post the Newtons’ content.

The court also rejected the Newtons’ argument that their contract claims should proceed based on a specific promise. It concluded that the second amended complaint did not plausibly allege such a promise that could support a legally cognizable claim.

Fraud Claim

The court held that the fraud claim still failed Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirement. The Newtons did not plausibly allege that Facebook published a false content-moderation policy while knowing it was false. The statements quoted in the complaint did not promise that Facebook would eliminate all hate speech from the platform. The fact that the Newtons’ advertisements were removed while other alleged hate speech remained on Facebook also did not plausibly show that the policy was a deception.

The court further held that the Newtons did not adequately plead justifiable reliance. Their allegations did not identify which Facebook statements they saw and relied on, why that reliance was reasonable, or what actions they took or avoided because of it. The court also noted that the claim did not account for Facebook’s advertising policies, which reserved the right to reject, approve, or remove any advertisement in Facebook’s sole discretion.

Disposition

Judge James Donato dismissed the case without leave to amend. The court reasoned that the Newtons’ failure to correct deficiencies previously identified by the court strongly indicated that they had no additional facts to plead.