Social Media Firms Move to Dismiss ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Complaint
Plaintiff Richard Jackson’s complaint is his second attempt to “vindicate grievances allegedly suffered” by Donald Trump-leaning Republicans “at the hands of a supposed collection” of tech companies, educational institutions, the Democratic National Committee and the Biden administration. So said defendants…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Alphabet, Google, Instagram, Meta, Twitter and YouTube in their joint motion Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-09438) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles to dismiss Jackson’s complaint. Jackson first tried to bring his lawsuit in state court “but abandoned that effort and voluntarily dismissed the case in the face of a demurrer,” it said. His current second complaint “mushroomed” to 10 times the length of the state-court complaint, added two plaintiffs and “is replete with conspiracy theories, tabloid storylines, and haphazard copy-and-paste jobs from other lawsuits,” it said. Length “is no substitute for substance,” and on that front, the complaint “falls short,” it said. Jackson and his co-plaintiffs lack Article III standing, “including because they have not alleged particularized injuries that affect them in a personal way,” it said. They also can’t state a Section 1983 claim against the defendants, all private actors, for violating the First Amendment, it said. Section 1983 doesn’t create a cause of action for claims “under the color of federal law,” it said. The defendants don’t qualify as state actors “under any recognized theory of coercion or joint action,” it said. The plaintiffs also fail to allege a claim for election interference, it said. “Any such claim requires showing state action,” which the plaintiffs can’t do, it said. The complaint also contains no allegations “remotely suggesting any statutory or constitutional violation,” it said. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars the plaintiffs’ statutory claims, as courts in the 9th Circuit “have repeatedly held,” it said.