Thomas v. Twitter Corporate Office

Background

Caze D. Thomas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued National Twitter Headquarters and Twitter Corporate Office over Twitter’s suspension of his @Zay_Cipher account and his efforts to obtain the account’s contents. The complaint alleged that as many as 3,500 posts became inaccessible and that Twitter sent defective links to his account archive. The complaint also alleged that Billie Eilish and her brother copied aspects of Thomas’s music, that other artists on Universal Music Group’s roster infringed his music, and that Elon Musk’s alleged “Model Pi Phone” infringed Thomas’s “Pi Face” device.

The original complaint asserted six claims: copyright infringement; illegally withholding intellectual property; illegal contracts; profiting from infringed intellectual property; tampering with evidence; and laundering. The court had already dismissed Billie Eilish and Universal Music Group from the case at Thomas’s request. Twitter was the only remaining defendant. Twitter agreed to provide the account archive using its available data-production tool, but it did not agree to reinstate Thomas’s account. After Thomas continued the litigation, Twitter moved to dismiss.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Because Thomas was representing himself, the court read his allegations liberally and considered the strongest claims they suggested.

For copyright infringement, the court assumed that the unidentified music and the Pi Face device were the works Thomas meant to identify. But Thomas did not show that he owned copyrights in those works or that the copyrights had been registered. He also did not allege that Twitter, rather than the former defendants or non-party Elon Musk, committed any infringing act. The court therefore dismissed the copyright claim.

The court treated Thomas’s claim for illegally withholding intellectual property as a possible New York claim for conversion, meaning unauthorized control over another person’s property. It dismissed that claim because the tweets, as alleged, were expressions of ideas rather than tangible property or documents into which intellectual-property rights had merged.

The court treated the “illegal contracts” claim as a possible claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. It concluded that the claim was not plausible because Twitter’s Terms of Service disclaimed responsibility for storing or transmitting content, did not promise to retain and provide all user data in every format, and because Twitter had attempted to provide Thomas with his archive.

The court treated the claim for profiting from infringed intellectual property as possible claims for misappropriation of ideas or unjust enrichment. It dismissed both theories because Thomas alleged no facts showing that Twitter actually used his ideas or made money from them. The court also dismissed the claims for tampering with evidence and laundering because those are crimes, not civil claims that a private citizen could enforce in this action.

The court additionally discussed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that can protect online services from claims treating them as publishers of user content. The court stated that Section 230 would appear to protect Twitter from claims based on its editorial decisions about user content, including removing or altering it. The court noted that the relevant federal appeals court had not expressly decided whether that protection applies specifically when a plaintiff challenges removal of content, but concluded that the complaint could not plausibly be repaired through amendment.

Disposition

The court granted Twitter’s motion to dismiss the complaint in full. It dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), without leave to replead, and denied Thomas leave to amend. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.

The opinion notes that “Twitter Corporate Office” and “National Twitter Headquarters” are not units of Twitter, Inc.; assuming the complaint was directed at Twitter, Inc., that entity defended the action. The opinion also states that Twitter had changed its name to X Corp. during the briefing, but the court continued to call the entity Twitter.