Elansari v. Meta, Inc.

1

AMRO ELANSARI, Plaintiff, v. META, INC. D/B/A FACEBOOK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-5325

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 30, 2022

OPINION

SLOMSKY, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

On November, 30, 2021, Plaintiff Amro Elansari initiated this case against Defendant Meta, Inc. d/b/a Facebook alleging that Meta “discriminated against him [the] week of November 22, 2021 as a Muslim by banning Palestinian Muslim News Organizations reporting on war crimes and international law violations while allowing Pro-Israel and Jewish Organizations [to] operate on the Facebook freely posting posts inciting violence and war crimes and international law violations against Palestinian and Arab people.” (Doc No. 1 ¶ 2.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Meta, Inc. committed: (1) unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title II”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq. (Count I); (2) racial discrimination in contractual relationships, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”) (Count III); (3) negligent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania state law (Count IV); and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania state law (Count V).^[1] (See Doc. No. 1 at 4-10.) After he filed his Complaint, a number of Motions were filed by Plaintiff.^[2]

On February 21, 2022, Defendant timely filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. No. 23.) On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 24) and on March 11, 2022 a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. No. 27). Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is now ripe for disposition. For reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted in its entirety.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Viewing the facts alleged in the Complaint as true, Plaintiff has alleged the following facts in this case. Plaintiff is a practicing Muslim that obtains his news about Palestine and Israel from “various news organizations including but not limited to, primarily, Al Qastal News which provides direct and on-the-ground updates on the Palestine / Israel conflict on a daily basis.” (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 9.) Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta and formerly known as Facebook, Inc., maintains servers in California that host a social networking site where users may view content, including news. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 24.) Plaintiff apparently joined Facebook and asserts that Defendant publishes Terms of Service, which include representations that Defendant operates “a platform of equality and fairness” and “[does] not tolerate discrimination.” (Id. ¶¶ 40, 54.)

Plaintiff alleges that during the week of November 22, 2021, Defendant Meta, Inc. “shut down many prominent Palestine pages in an attempt to silence the Muslim perspective and narrative of the war crimes and violations of international law taking place by the illegal occupation of Israel.” (Id. ¶ 10.) At the same time, Defendant was “not-blocking and not silencing Pro-Israel and Pro-Jewish organizations advocating violence against Arabs and Muslims.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Jewish users can access news pertaining to Israel, while Muslim users “have their news sources banned.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff further avers that Defendant has a dialogue with the government of Israel and has coordinated requests to silence Palestinian Muslim pages. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 48, 58.) Defendant submits that these allegations do not support the claims asserted against it. For this reason and others, it seeks dismissal of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The motion to dismiss standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). After Iqbal it is clear that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 678; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). “To survive dismissal, ‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 882 F.3d 422, 426 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

Facial plausibility is “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Instead, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

“Under the plausibility pleading standard, this Circuit uses a three-step process to evaluate a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.” Lutz v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 21-1656, 2022 WL 4295631, at *3 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2022) (further citations omitted):

The first step in that process requires an articulation of the elements of the claim. The second step involves reviewing the complaint and disregarding any “‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a ... claim' or other legal conclusion,” as well as allegations that are “so threadbare or speculative that they fail to cross the line between the conclusory and the factual.” The third step evaluates the plausibility of the remaining allegations. That involves assuming their veracity, construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.

Id. at *3 (internal citations omitted). The inquiry is normally broken into three parts: “(1) identifying the elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory allegations, and then (3) looking at the well-pleaded components of the complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the inquiry are sufficiently alleged.” Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).

A complaint must do more than allege a plaintiff's entitlement to relief, it must “show” such an entitlement with its facts. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234-35 (3d Cir. 2008)). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The “plausibility” determination is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

Because Plaintiff filed his Complaint pro se, the Court will liberally construe the pleadings. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). The Court “will apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.” Id. (citing Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).

IV. ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted and that the Communication Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”), bars Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. No. 23-1.) The Court will address each averment in turn and will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted

1. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim under Title II (Count I)

Plaintiff's Title II claim also will be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege Defendant deprived him of full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation. Title II of the Civil Rights Act provides:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a). To state a Title II claim, a plaintiff must allege that he himself was denied access to or services of a public accommodation. See McCrea v. Saks, Inc., No. 00-CV-1936, 2000 WL 1912726, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2000). Plaintiff urges the Court to find that Facebook qualifies as a “public accommodation” for purposes of Title II. (See Doc. No. 1 at 4-7.) But Title II identifies a detailed list of public accommodations within the meaning of the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b). Businesses not listed in Title II should not be read into the statute. See McCrea, 2000 WL 1912726, at *2. And under established Third Circuit law, a “public accommodation” is limited to physical structures. See Peoples v. Discover Fin. Servs.,Inc., 387 Fed.Appx. 179, 183 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding that the term “public accommodation” is limited to physical accommodations); see also Mahoney v. Herr Foods Inc., 19-CV-5759, 2020 WL 1979153, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2020). Further, “a number of courts have concluded that companies which provide online services exclusively do not fall under the ambit of Title II's prohibition against discrimination in places of ‘public accommodation' as that definition is limited to businesses which operate out of physical facilities.” Wilson v. Twitter, 3:20-CV-00054, 2020 WL 3410349, at *7 (S.D. W.Va. May 1, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 3256820 (S.D. W.Va. June 16, 2020).

Here Plaintiff fails to allege he was denied either access to or services of a public accommodation. First, Facebook is not a public accommodation under Title II. It is not identified in the list of public accommodations within the meaning of that statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b). Second, Facebook is not a physical facility; it is a website. Plaintiff...