United Fed'n of Churches, LLC v. Johnson

522 F.Supp.3d 842

UNITED FEDERATION OF CHURCHES, LLC d/b/a The Satanic Temple, Plaintiff,

v.David Alan JOHNSON et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-00509-RAJ

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

Signed February 26, 2021

Matthew A. Kezhaya, Pro Hac Vice, Kezhaya Law PLC, Bentonville, AR, Benjamin R. Justus, Lybeck Pedreira & Justus PLLC, Mercer Is, WA, for Plaintiff.

Jeremy E. Roller, Arete Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 11. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

II. BACKGROUND

The Satanic Temple has its own Facebook page. In fact, it has two. It also has a Twitter page and a Google E-mail account. Former members of The Satanic Temple, as approved administrators, took control of the accounts, and The Satanic Temple is now bringing suit.

Plaintiff United Federation of Churches, LLC ("The Satanic Temple") is a religious organization. Dkt. # 1 ¶ 7. As such, its mission is to "encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will." Id. ¶ 9. To that end, it espouses "seven fundamental tenets." Id. ¶ 8. Among them are beliefs such as, "[o]ne's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone," and "[o]ne should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs." Id. (tenets 3 and 5).

There are Satanists throughout the country, comprising groups denominated as "Chapters." Id. ¶ 12. The State of Washington has its own Chapter ("Washington Chapter"). See id.

In 2014, the Washington Chapter created a "business page" on Facebook to disseminate information about The Satanic Temple. Id. ¶ 23. Facebook is a social media website that "permits users to create and share content," such as "links, commentary, and written conversations," either as individuals on personal pages or as organizations on business pages. Id. ¶ 17. Since creating the Facebook page, the Washington Chapter has garnered over 17,000 followers. Id. ¶ 24. Besides its primary Facebook page, the Washington Chapter has a few other online accounts. Id. ¶¶ 22, 25-26. For example, it has a Twitter account with about 4,000 followers, it has a secondary Facebook page named "TST WA allies" with about 500 followers, and it has a Google account. Id.

Initially, the two Facebook pages were "maintained and controlled exclusively by approved administrators." Id. ¶ 27. Administrators were subject to a written Code of Conduct. Id. ¶ 28. The Code of Conduct outlines the permissible online activity for Satanists, including the "administrators’ authorization to access [The Satanic Temple]’s social media accounts." Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Defendants are all former members of The Satanic Temple, id. ¶¶ 13-16, and they had all been "entrusted with administrative rights" to the social media accounts "subject to the requirements set forth in the Code of Conduct," id. ¶ 30.

In March 2020, Defendant David Alan Johnson and Defendant Mickey Meeham "hacked" the Facebook pages. Id. ¶¶ 1, 36, 39. For the Washington Chapter's secondary Facebook page, Defendant Meeham "exceeded authorization" by "removing all [The-Satanic-Temple]-approved administrators except the other named Defendants." Id. ¶ 36. Defendant Meeham also changed the name of the secondary page to "Evergreen Memes for Queer Satanic Friends" and posted a manifesto. Id. In that manifesto, Defendant Meeham wrote that the page was "no longer affiliated with The Satanic Temple." Id. Defendant Meeham suggested that the Washington Chapter had supported "ableism, misogyny, and racism," transphobia, and police brutality. Id.

Days later, Defendant Johnson did something similar with the Washington Chapter's primary Facebook page. Id. ¶ 39. Defendant Johnson "exceeded authorization" by "removing all [The-Satanic-Temple]-approved administrators," modifying the Facebook cover page, and posting yet another manifesto. Id. ; see also Dkt. # 1-5. According to The Satanic Temple, Defendant Johnson "levie[d] false claims that [The Satanic Temple] leadership is cozy with the alt-right, are white supremacists, [and] are generally insufficiently leftist." Dkt. # 1 ¶ 40. Two days after that, Defendant Johnson changed the name of the primary Facebook page from "The Satanic Temple Washington" to "Satanic Washington State – Archived Temple Chapter." Id. ¶ 43.

As to Washington Chapter's other online accounts, Defendant Johnson "exceeded authorization" for the Twitter account by changing the account's profile description and by "following a number of extremist groups to create a false impression of affiliation between T[he Satanic Temple] and extremism." Id. ¶ 38. Likewise, Defendant Leah Fishbaugh "exceeded authorization" by changing the password to the Google accounts, changing the recovery email, and changing the phone number associated with the account. Id. ¶ 42. The Satanic Temple has since been able to recover the Twitter and Google accounts. Id. ¶ 54.

But The Satanic Temple has not been able to recover the two Facebook accounts. Id. ¶ 55. Despite "repeatedly demand[ing] the return of the Facebook pages from both Facebook and Defendants," The Satanic Temple has not regained access. Id. ¶¶ 49, 55. Facebook asserts that the issue is a "[p]age admin issue," rather than an "infringement of [The Satanic Temple's] legal rights." Id. ¶ 50.

The Satanic Temple now seeks relief in federal court. Id. ¶ 55. On April 3, 2020, The Satanic Temple filed the instant complaint. Dkt. # 1. Two months later, Defendants moved to dismiss. Dkt. # 11. The motion is ripe for adjudication.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. The court must assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v. Brown , 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). The court "need not accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint." Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Instead, the plaintiff must point to factual allegations that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 568, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint avoids dismissal if there is "any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint" that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

On a motion to dismiss, a court typically considers only the contents of the complaint. However, a court is permitted to take judicial notice of facts that are incorporated by reference in the complaint. United States v. Ritchie , 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) ("A court may ... consider certain materials documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint."); Mir v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. , 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988) ("[I]t is proper for the district court to ‘take judicial notice of matters of public record outside the pleadings’ and consider them for purposes of the motion to dismiss.") (quoting MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman , 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986) ).

IV. DISCUSSION

The Satanic Temple asserts five causes of action: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), (2) violation of the Anti–Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), (3) tortious interference with business expectancy, (4) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), and (5) defamation. The Court addresses each in turn.

A. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The Satanic Temple's first cause of action is for a "CFAA Violation." Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 56-66. The complaint does not specify what subsection of the statute the claim is brought under. Id. Defendants assume that it is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). Dkt. # 11 at 9. The Satanic Temple, on the other hand, suggests that it is relying on 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C). Dkt. # 12 at 4. For purposes of this order, the specific subsection is not important. Either applies only if someone accesses a computer "without authorization" or "exceeds authorized access."

The CFAA creates criminal and civil liability for "acts of computer trespass by those who are not authorized users or who exceed authorized use." Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. , 844 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016). A protected computer may be improperly accessed in one of two ways, (1) by "obtaining access without authorization" or (2) by "obtaining access with authorization but then using that access improperly." Id. (quoting Musacchio v. United States , 577 U.S. 237, 136 S. Ct. 709, 713, 193 L.Ed.2d 639 (U.S. 2016) ). Summarizing the Ninth Circuit's historical application of the CFAA, the court in Facebook v. Power Ventures explained "two general rules." Id. at 1067.

First, a defendant can run afoul of the CFAA when he or she has no permission to access a computer or when such permission has been revoked explicitly. Once permission has been revoked, technological gamesmanship or the enlisting of a third party to aid in access will not excuse liability. Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website—without more—cannot establish liability under the CFAA.

Id. at 1067.

Of the two rules, The Satanic Temple says Defendants violated the second. Dkt. # 12 at 4-8. It does not currently allege or argue that Defendants’ actions were done "without authorization." In fact, it alleges...