Case Law Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (37) Cited in (19) Related

Dennis Edward Boyle, Blerina Jasari, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP, Washington, DC, Christopher Daniel Sullivan, Diamond McCarthy LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Jonathan Hugh Blavin, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 40

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Federal Agency of News LLC ("FAN") and Evgeniy Zubarev (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring suit against Defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") because Facebook removed FAN's Facebook account and page. The Court previously granted Facebook's motion to dismiss without prejudice. ECF No. 33. Before the Court is Facebook's second motion to dismiss. ECF No. 40. Having considered the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Facebook's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

Plaintiff FAN is a "corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Russian Federation" that "gathers, transmits and supplies domestic and international news reports and other publications of public interest." ECF No. 36 ("First Amended Complaint" or "FAC") ¶¶ 2, 5. Plaintiff Evgeniy Zubarev is "the sole shareholder and General Director of FAN." Id. ¶ 6. Defendant Facebook operates an online social media and social networking platform on which users like FAN can disseminate content by publishing on the users' Facebook page "posts and other content for its Facebook followers." Id. ¶¶ 3, 30. Facebook users' utilization of Facebook is governed by Facebook's Terms of Service that, if violated, may result in the deletion of users' Facebook accounts and pages. Id. ¶¶ 4, 58, 91.

On or about December 2014, FAN started "a Facebook page through which FAN has published its posts and other content for its Facebook followers." Id. ¶ 3. After the 2016 United States presidential election, "Facebook began to shut down ‘inauthentic’ Facebook accounts that allegedly sought to inflame social and political tensions in the United States." Id. ¶ 10. Facebook allegedly shut down such accounts because the accounts' activities were "similar to or connected to that of Russian Facebook accounts during the 2016 United States presidential election which were allegedly controlled by the Russia-based Internet Research Agency (‘IRA’)." Id. FAN's Facebook account and page were among those that were shut down. Id. ¶ 57. FAN's Facebook account and page were shut down on April 3, 2018. Id.

1. FAN's Role in Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Presidential Election

As aforementioned, Facebook shut down Facebook accounts with connections to Russian Facebook accounts allegedly controlled by the IRA. Id. ¶ 10. The IRA was "an agency which allegedly employed fake accounts registered on major social networks ... to promote the Russian government's interests in domestic and foreign policy." Id. ¶ 11. Specifically, in a United States Intelligence Community report regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the IRA was described as an agency of "professional trolls whose likely financier is a close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence." Id. ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks omitted). Notably, from "the time of FAN's incorporation and until in or about the middle of 2015, FAN and the IRA were located in the same building" in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Id. ¶ 37.

In addition, FAN's founder and first "General Director" is Aleksandra Yurievna Krylova. Id. ¶ 34. The Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election that was headed by Robert Mueller determined that Krylova was employed by the IRA from about September 2013 to about November 2014. Id. ¶¶ 19, 34. However, FAN proclaims that it does not know the veracity of the Special Counsel's finding. Id. ¶ 34. Nevertheless, on February 16, 2018, the Special Counsel indicted Krylova, who was accused of participation in the IRA's "interference operations targeting the United States." Id. ¶ 39.

Moreover, on October 19, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia unsealed a criminal complaint. Id. ¶ 41. The criminal complaint divulged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") had uncovered "a Russian interference operation in political and electoral systems targeting populations within the Russian Federation, and other countries, including the United States" codenamed "Project Lakhta." Id. In support of the criminal complaint, the FBI asserted that Project Lakhta used "inauthentic user names to create fictitious Facebook profiles" and "published false and misleading news articles intended to influence the U.S. and other elections." Id. ¶¶ 46, 48. Notably, the FBI also attested that FAN, as well as the IRA, were entities within Project Lakhta. Id. ¶ 42. Furthermore, the criminal complaint was filed against Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova, who has been FAN's chief accountant since August 2, 2016. Id. ¶¶ 41, 51. However, FAN maintains that it was not involved in Project Lakhta and that it had no "direct connection" to the IRA. Id. ¶¶ 45, 56.

2. Facebook's Role in the United States' Investigation of Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election

On September 6, 2017, Facebook's Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos announced that "Facebook found approximately $100,000.00 in advertisement spending" between June 2015 and May 2017 "associated with more than 3,000 advertisements in connection with approximately 470 allegedly inauthentic Facebook accounts and Pages." Id. ¶ 15. Stamos stated that "Facebook conducted a sweeping search looking for all ads that might have originated in Russia." Id. ¶ 16 (quotation marks omitted). Facebook then "shared these findings with United States authorities" and provided Congress "with information related to the 3,000 advertisements." Id. ¶¶ 16-17.

On September 21, 2017, Facebook's cofounder, chairman, and chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg released a video stating that "Facebook is actively working with the U.S. government on its ongoing investigations into Russian interference" and that Facebook is providing information to the Special Counsel. Id. ¶ 19.

3. The Removal of FAN's Facebook Account and Page

On April 3, 2018, Facebook shut down FAN's Facebook account and page. Id. ¶ 57. In an email, Facebook explained that FAN's Facebook account and page were shut down because FAN allegedly violated Facebook's Terms of Service. Id. ¶ 58. FAN was among the more than 270 Russian language accounts and pages that Facebook shut down on April 3, 2018. Id. ¶ 20. On the same day, Zuckerberg published a blog post explaining Facebook's actions. Id. ¶ 21. Zuckerberg wrote that the accounts and pages taken down on April 3, 2018 were removed because "they were controlled by the IRA" and not because of "the content they shared." Id. Specifically, Zuckerberg wrote that the IRA "has repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the US, Europe, and Russia," and since 2016, when the IRA "had set up a network of hundreds of fake accounts to spread divisive content and interfere in the US presidential election," Facebook has improved its "techniques to prevent nation states from interfering in foreign elections." Mark Zuckerberg, https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104771321644971 (last visited January 9, 2020); see FAC ¶ 21 (referencing Zuckerberg's blog post).

B. Procedural History

On November 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Facebook. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiffs originally alleged five causes of action: (1) a Bivens claim for violation of the First Amendment; (2) "damages under Title II of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983"; (3) "Damages under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act"; (4) breach of contract; and (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. ¶¶ 59-117.

On April 15, 2019, Facebook filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. ECF No. 25. The Court granted Facebook's motion to dismiss without prejudice on July 20, 2019. ECF No. 33. The Court first dismissed Plaintiff's second cause of action under Title II of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Plaintiffs did not allege that any party was acting under color of state law. Id. at 7.

The Court then addressed Defendant's argument under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (" Section 230"), or the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"). Under Section 230, "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The Court concluded that Facebook fulfilled all three prerequisites necessary to claim Section 230 immunity. ECF No. 33 at 8-13. First, Facebook qualified as an "interactive computer service" based on Plaintiffs' allegations and ample case law. Id. at 8-9. Second, Plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook liable for removing information provided by an "information content provider" that was not Facebook. Id. at 9. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook liable for content provided by FAN. Id. at 9-10. Third, Plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook liable as a publisher or speaker of Plaintiff's content because "Plaintiffs' claims [were] based on Facebook's decision not to publish FAN's content." Id. at 11. Accordingly, the Court determined that the CDA barred all of Plaintiffs' causes of action except for Plaintiffs' Bivens claim for a violation of the First Amendment. Id.

As to the Bivens claim, the Court concluded that Facebook could not be held liable for violating the First Amendment because Facebook was not a "public forum" and Facebook's actions did...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2021
Children's Health Def. v. Facebook Inc.
"...to put the warning label on CHD's Facebook page, or the decisions to "demonetize" or "shadow-ban." In Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc. , 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2020), Judge Koh addressed a similar Bivens claim challenging Facebook's removal of the Facebook account and p..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2022
O'Handley v. Padilla
"...Cir. 2001) ("[M]ere furnishing of information to police officers does not constitute joint action"); Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ("supplying information to the state alone [does not amount] to conspiracy or joint action") (alteratio..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2021
Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.
"...Cross v. Facebook, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 190, 207, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ( Cross ); Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2020) 432 F.Supp.3d 1107, 1118 ( Federal Agency of News ) [complaint admitted Federal Agency of News LLC was the source of content Facebook, Inc. (Fa..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington – 2023
McCarthy v. Amazon.com, Inc.
"...content providers with respect to Plaintiffs' WPLA intentional concealment claim. See, e.g., Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117-19 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (concluding that Facebook was not an information content provider where plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook l..."
Document | New Hampshire Supreme Court – 2020
Teatotaller, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
"...prong of the Section 230 ’s immunity test, the defendant must be an ‘interactive computer service.’ " Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) ). An "interactive computer service" is "any information service, system, ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 73-2, January 2022
The Protection of Freedom of Expression from Social Media Platforms
"...149. Id.150. 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019).151. Federal Agency of News LLC, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2020).152. Trevor Puetz, Facebook: The New Town Square, 44 S.W. L. Rev. 385 (2014). 153. Matthew P. Hooker, Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying the F..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 73-2, January 2022
The Protection of Freedom of Expression from Social Media Platforms
"...149. Id.150. 912 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2019).151. Federal Agency of News LLC, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2020).152. Trevor Puetz, Facebook: The New Town Square, 44 S.W. L. Rev. 385 (2014). 153. Matthew P. Hooker, Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying the F..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2021
Children's Health Def. v. Facebook Inc.
"...to put the warning label on CHD's Facebook page, or the decisions to "demonetize" or "shadow-ban." In Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc. , 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2020), Judge Koh addressed a similar Bivens claim challenging Facebook's removal of the Facebook account and p..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California – 2022
O'Handley v. Padilla
"...Cir. 2001) ("[M]ere furnishing of information to police officers does not constitute joint action"); Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ("supplying information to the state alone [does not amount] to conspiracy or joint action") (alteratio..."
Document | California Court of Appeals – 2021
Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.
"...Cross v. Facebook, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 190, 207, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ( Cross ); Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2020) 432 F.Supp.3d 1107, 1118 ( Federal Agency of News ) [complaint admitted Federal Agency of News LLC was the source of content Facebook, Inc. (Fa..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington – 2023
McCarthy v. Amazon.com, Inc.
"...content providers with respect to Plaintiffs' WPLA intentional concealment claim. See, e.g., Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117-19 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (concluding that Facebook was not an information content provider where plaintiffs sought to hold Facebook l..."
Document | New Hampshire Supreme Court – 2020
Teatotaller, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
"...prong of the Section 230 ’s immunity test, the defendant must be an ‘interactive computer service.’ " Federal Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, 432 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) ). An "interactive computer service" is "any information service, system, ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex