Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc.

Background

Abdulrahman Al-Sadhan operated an anonymous X account that criticized the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs alleged that X employees accessed confidential user information and provided his identifying information to Saudi government agents. They alleged that Saudi authorities then kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned, and prosecuted him. His sister, Areej Al-Sadhan, later publicly advocated for his release and alleged that she was stalked, threatened, harassed, and harmed in her work and other opportunities.

The First Amended Complaint asserted claims against X under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). X moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the complaint did not plausibly state RICO or ATS claims, and that the RICO claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations.

Standing

Article III standing requires an injury, a connection between the defendant’s conduct and that injury, and a likelihood that a court decision can remedy it. The court held that Abdulrahman had standing. His account was anonymous, the complaint alleged that X employees disclosed information identifying him to Saudi agents, and the complaint connected that disclosure to his later kidnapping, torture, imprisonment, and prosecution. The court found this causal connection sufficiently plausible at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court held that Areej did not have standing. It reasoned that her advocacy, missed work, emotional distress, and resulting harassment followed from her own decisions to advocate publicly after her brother’s disappearance. Those independent decisions made the causal connection to X’s alleged conduct too indirect. The court also held that her injuries were derivative of Abdulrahman’s injuries and therefore too remote to support standing under RICO.

Alien Tort Statute claim

The court recognized that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, the ATS can support aiding-and-abetting liability for international-law violations. A defendant must have provided assistance with a substantial effect on the violation and must have acted knowing that the assistance would help commit a crime, or aware of a substantial likelihood that it would do so.

The court nevertheless held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that X conspired with, or knowingly aided and abetted, the Saudi government’s kidnapping and torture of Abdulrahman. The court found insufficient the allegations concerning Saudi investments in X, a meeting between X representatives and Saudi officials, employee emails and direct messages, an employee’s travel to Saudi Arabia, emergency disclosure requests, the employee’s promotion, X’s response to an FBI investigation, X’s notice to potentially affected users, and a later meeting involving X’s then-chief executive officer and a Saudi official. According to the court, these allegations did not provide a plausible basis to infer that X had the required knowledge or intent.

The court dismissed Abdulrahman’s ATS claim because he failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

RICO statute of limitations

The court stated that civil RICO claims generally have a four-year limitations period, which begins when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury underlying the claim. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the period began when Abdulrahman learned, in 2021, that his sentence would prevent him from pursuing business and employment opportunities in the United States.

The court held that the relevant injury began when Abdulrahman was kidnapped and detained on March 12, 2018, or shortly afterward when it became clear that he would not be promptly released. Because the complaint was filed on May 16, 2023, the court ruled that the RICO claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition

Judge Edward Chen concluded that Abdulrahman had standing, but Areej did not. The court dismissed Areej’s claim, dismissed Abdulrahman’s ATS claim because it was not plausibly pleaded, and dismissed the RICO claim because it was time-barred. The court therefore granted X’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.