Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`PATRICK J. CAROME (pro hac vice pending)
`patrick.carome@wilmerhale.com
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice pending)
`ari.holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`PETER G. NEIMAN (pro hac vice pending)
`peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com
`250 Greenwich St., 45 Floor
`New York, New York 10007
`Telephone: (212) 295-6487
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`MARK D. FLANAGAN
`CA Bar No. 130303
`mark.flanagan@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real #400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6047
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`(San Francisco Division)
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KEN PAXTON,
`in his official capacity as Attorney
`General of Texas,
`
`Defendant.
`
`3:21-cv-01644
`Case No. ____________________
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) for its Complaint against Ken Paxton, in his official
`capacity as Attorney General of Texas (“AG Paxton”), hereby alleges as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Twitter seeks to stop AG
`1.
`Paxton from unlawfully abusing his authority as the highest law-enforcement officer of the State
`of Texas to intimidate, harass, and target Twitter in retaliation for Twitter’s exercise of its First
`Amendment rights. The rights of free speech and of the press afforded Twitter under the First
`Amendment of the U.S. Constitution include the right to make decisions about what content to
`disseminate through its platform. This right specifically includes the discretion to remove or
`otherwise restrict access to Tweets, profiles, or other content posted to Twitter. AG Paxton may
`not compel Twitter to publish such content over its objection, and he may not penalize Twitter for
`exercising its right to exclude such content from its platform.
`Twitter operates an online platform where users can share short messages
`2.
`(“Tweets”) and other content. Twitter’s hundreds of millions of users send hundreds of millions
`of Tweets each day. To protect the health and safety of the people who use its platform, as well
`as the integrity of the site, Twitter has established content moderation policies and procedures.
`Pursuant to these policies and procedures, Twitter must frequently make difficult real-time
`decisions regarding whether to remove or otherwise restrict content. In particular, in the months
`surrounding the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, Twitter decided to suspend
`or restrict numerous accounts for violating its policies against glorifying or inciting violence, and
`against manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. Among the users whose
`accounts were permanently suspended in the immediate aftermath of the deadly attack was
`President Donald Trump.
`AG Paxton has long disagreed with Twitter’s content moderation decisions, and
`3.
`made that displeasure widely known. But this disagreement turned to official action against the
`company after Twitter suspended President Trump’s account on January 8, 2021. Just five days
`later, on January 13, 2021, AG Paxton issued a civil investigative demand (“CID”) to Twitter
`seeking volumes of highly confidential documents concerning Twitter’s internal content
`
`2 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`moderation processes—the public disclosure of which would undermine their effectiveness, and
`compromise Twitter’s ability to effectively and efficiently moderate content on its platform.
`Twitter sought for weeks to reach an agreement with AG Paxton that would put reasonable limits
`on the scope of this demand, but to no avail. Instead, AG Paxton made clear that he will use the
`full weight of his office, including his expansive investigatory powers, to retaliate against Twitter
`for having made editorial decisions with which he disagrees. Now Twitter, already targeted
`because of its protected activity, is left with the untenable choice to turn over highly sensitive
`documents or else face legal sanction.
`The First Amendment prohibits such acts. Any “[o]fficial reprisal for protected
`4.
`speech” runs afoul of the Constitution because it “threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected
`right.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`Accordingly, there is “a longstanding, clearly established right . . . to be free from retaliation in
`the form of threatened legal sanctions and other similar means of coercion, persuasion, and
`intimidation.” Sampson v. Cty. of Los Angeles by & through Los Angeles Cty. Dep’t of Children
`& Family Servs., 974 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). As set forth in this Complaint, AG Paxton’s
`retaliatory investigation and intrusive CID are precisely the sort of “threatened legal sanctions,”
`“coercion,” and “intimidation” forbidden by the First Amendment. The investigation and CID
`unlawfully intrude on Twitter’s internal editorial processes and burden its protected activity, and
`do so solely because Twitter exercised its First Amendment rights in a way disagreeable to AG
`Paxton. This retaliatory conduct violates the Constitution.
`For these and other reasons discussed below, Twitter respectfully requests that this
`5.
`Court declare the CID and Defendant’s investigatory efforts unlawful, and enjoin AG Paxton from
`initiating any action to enforce the CID issued on January 13, 2021, or otherwise pursuing the
`investigation of Twitter’s internal decisionmaking processes that AG Paxton announced on
`January 13, 2021.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under
`6.
`the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
`
`3 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`This Court is authorized to award the requested declaratory and injunctive relief
`7.
`under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and by its general legal and
`equitable powers.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Federal Rule of Criminal
`8.
`Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) and California Civil Procedure Code § 410.10. The claim in this case arises
`from multiple actions that AG Paxton purposefully directed toward the Northern District of
`California with the intent of causing injury in, and changing behavior in, the Northern District of
`California, see Paragraphs 23-29, 41-57 infra, including transmitting the CID to Twitter in the
`Northern District of California, where the company’s headquarters are located. The CID and
`retaliatory investigation have already forced and will continue to force Twitter to incur financial
`costs and divert employee time in the Northern District of California to comply with the CID. In
`addition, the purpose of the CID and retaliatory investigation is to punish Twitter for, and to
`compel Twitter to change, editorial decisions regarding platform content that were and are
`supervised and directed by employees in the Northern District of California.
`AG Paxton also consented, and waived any objection, to jurisdiction and venue in
`9.
`the Northern District of California by agreeing to the Twitter User Agreement, which provides that
`“All disputes related to these Terms or the Services” will be litigated “solely in the federal or state
`courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States.” The Texas Attorney General’s
`Office has had authorization and use over a Twitter account since 2009, which has been used to
`post Tweets as recently as March 6, 2021. AG Paxton has separately held a Twitter account since
`2009, currently operated under the display name “Attorney General Ken Paxton,” which he
`regularly uses to comment on political issues. He used that account to announce that he would
`“fight” Twitter with “all I’ve got” after Twitter permanently suspended President Trump’s account,
`and the account has been used to post Tweets as recently as March 8, 2021. The CID and
`retaliatory investigation relate to Twitter’s Terms and Services.
`Venue is also proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). A
`10.
`substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in the Northern District of
`California. This is where AG Paxton directed and served the retaliatory CID, and his threatening
`
`4 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Tweets and press statements, and it is where Twitter engaged in the targeted protected First
`Amendment activity. The harm Twitter will suffer as a result of AG Paxton’s actions has and will
`continue to be felt in the Northern District of California.
`PARTIES
`Twitter is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1355
`11.
`Market Street, San Francisco, CA. Twitter operates a global platform for self-expression and
`communication, with the mission of giving everyone the power to create and share ideas and
`information instantly. Twitter’s more than 190 million daily active users use the platform to
`connect with others, express ideas, and discover new information. Hundreds of millions of short
`messages are posted on Twitter every day. Twitter provides these services at no charge to its users.
`Ken Paxton is the Attorney General of the State of Texas. He is sued in his official
`12.
`capacity. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Texas.
`FACTS
`Twitter’s Platform and Services
`A.
`Twitter operates an Internet communications platform that allows hundreds of
`13.
`millions of people around the world to share views and track current events.
`People engage on Twitter’s platform by, among other things, reading and posting
`14.
`“Tweets,” short messages limited to 280 characters. The brevity of the messages and the ability
`to react instantaneously to political, cultural, and social events have made Twitter one of the
`world’s most popular online platforms. Twitter aims to serve the public conversation by providing
`a platform, open to a broad variety of voices. Twitter is also committed to protecting the health
`and safety of its users and fostering an environment for “safe, inclusive, and authentic
`conversations.” Healthy Conversations, Twitter https://tinyurl.com/mcs28acx.
` Twitter achieves that goal through content moderation policies, practices, and
`15.
`techniques that, among other things, are designed to minimize the reach of harmful or misleading
`information—especially when intended to disrupt civic processes or cause offline harm. Id.
`Twitter actively enforces its content moderation policies. To “limit behaviors that
`16.
`discourage others from expressing themselves or place them at a risk of harm,” in 2019, Twitter
`
`5 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`removed content over 4.7 million times, and took action on over 3.8 million unique accounts,
`including suspending over 1.5 million accounts. Rules Enforcement, Accounts Actioned,
`https://tinyurl.com/2cjxr8mb.
`Twitter strives to be transparent in its content moderation decisions. For example,
`17.
`it publishes the standards governing conduct on the platform, and requires all users to consent to
`those terms. Those standards, which Twitter continuously refines, include prohibitions on
`glorifying or inciting violence, and on using Twitter’s services to manipulate or interfere in
`elections or other civil processes. See The Twitter Rules, https://tinyurl.com/wry9thc2.
`Twitter regularly publishes blog posts containing detailed explanations for its
`18.
`adoption of certain moderation policies. Twitter also regularly publishes blog posts containing
`detailed explanations for its adoption of certain moderation policies. See, e.g., Twitter,
`Coronavirus: Staying safe and informed on Twitter (Apr. 3, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/633y4dy4.
`19. While Twitter strives for as much transparency as possible, it cannot practically
`make every aspect of its content moderation practices public because some confidentiality is vital
`to the effective functioning of its platform. Public disclosure of all Twitter’s internal content
`moderation procedures would, among other things, provide a roadmap for bad-faith actors to
`design their content to carefully evade Twitter’s scrutiny, undermining the company’s ability to
`remove content that negatively affects the security and integrity of the platform and the health of
`the conversation on the platform.
`Disclosure also threatens Twitter’s editorial discretion. Twitter exercises its
`20.
`editorial judgment by creating and implementing moderation procedures that reflect sensitive
`internal deliberations over what discourse appears on the platform and in what manner. These
`moderation policies and procedures are functionally equivalent to the internal editorial decision-
`making processes of news organizations: just as newspapers and magazines carefully guard their
`internal deliberations about what news they see as fit to print or what op-eds they will publish, so
`too does Twitter guard its internal deliberations and procedures for making editorial judgments.
`Twitter is aware that the outcome of those internal deliberations—including
`21.
`decisions to remove or retain certain content or speakers—may sometimes generate public
`
`6 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`discussion and debate. But Twitter’s ability to freely make its own decisions as to what content to
`include on its platform is impeded by the persistent threat that government actors who disagree
`with those decisions may wield their official authority to retaliate, such as by issuing a burdensome
`CID or commencing an intrusive investigation.
`AG Paxton Attempts To Influence Twitter’s Editorial Decisions
`B.
`22.
`Complaints that Twitter and other social media companies are biased against
`conservatives have proliferated among certain groups, even as President Trump’s Twitter account
`attracted tens of millions of followers. See Rachel Lerman, Trump says Twitter is trying to
`‘silence’ conservatives. His growing number of followers suggests otherwise., WASHINGTON POST
`(May 28, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/nsbd55t5.)
`Over the past three years, AG Paxton, in particular, has expressed interest in using
`23.
`the powers of his office to address this supposed bias. In 2018, he attended a “listening session”
`called by then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to discuss possible strategies for doing
`so. Brian Fung and Tony Romm, Inside the private Justice Department meeting that could lead
`to new investigations of Facebook, Google and other tech giants, WASHINGTON POST (Sept. 25,
`2018), https://tinyurl.com/3ddvxvuw.
`After the meeting, AG Paxton disseminated through his press secretary a statement
`24.
`supporting scrutiny of social media platforms, knowing it would reach Twitter and other tech
`companies in California. Alina Selyukh, DOJ Probe Into Bias at Tech Companies Should Include
`Democrats, California AG Says, NPR (Sept. 11, 2018), https://tinyurl.com/2mevuyp4 (quoting
`Paxton’s spokesperson as saying Paxton was looking forward to the “discussion regarding growing
`concerns that conservative voices are being suppressed on several social media platforms”).
`The following year, one of AG Paxton’s top deputies, Texas First Assistant
`25.
`Attorney General Jeff Mateer, attended a Federal Trade Commission roundtable in which he
`discussed Twitter’s decisionmaking, voicing concern that Twitter was designing its platform to
`“limit the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results.” Office of the Attorney General
`of Texas, First Assistant AG Jeff Mateer to FTC: Big Tech Companies Must Comply with State
`Deceptive Trade Practices Law (June 12, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/b3tswysw.
`
`7 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In May 2020, Twitter publicly announced that it was modifying its “Civic Integrity
`26.
`Policy,” and as a result would begin to “label or remove false or misleading information about how
`to participate in an election or other civic process.” Civic Integrity Policy, Twitter Help Center,
`(May 27, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/nmajvvsm.
`Thereafter, President Trump repeatedly violated this policy, posting misleading
`27.
`information regarding election administration. For instance, on May 26, 2020, referring to
`California’s election processes, President Trump Tweeted, “The Governor of California is sending
`Ballots to millions of people” when ballot applications were being mailed. President Donald J.
`Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (May 26, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/dp5yss.
`Pursuant to its Civic Integrity Policy, Twitter labelled some of these Tweets as
`28.
`misleading, consistent with its disclosed policy. This label stated “Get the facts about mail-in
`ballots” and linked to official, governmental sources about mail-in voting. Elizabeth Dwoskin,
`Twitter labels Trump’s tweets with a fact check for the first time, WASHINGTON POST (May 27,
`2020), https://tinyurl.com/93x3ex5t. Twitter explained that it applied the label because, in its
`view, the “Tweet[] could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and
`participate in the election process.” Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety), Twitter (May 27, 2020),
`https://tinyurl.com/b9mzu734.
`In near-immediate reaction to Twitter’s first such labeling action, AG Paxton issued
`29.
`an opinion piece on Fox News, which he knew would reach Twitter’s leadership in California,
`criticizing Twitter for adding these labels, accusing Twitter’s “fact-checkers” of being politically
`biased, and “strongly urg[ing] . . . Twitter [to] reconsider its selective—and apparently
`ideologically driven—‘fact check’ of President Trump’s statements about mail balloting.” Ken
`Paxton, Texas AG Ken Paxton: Trump is right and Twitter ‘fact check’ is wrong—mail-in ballot
`fraud is a real problem, FOX NEWS (May 27, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/tnth74fy.
`On September 3, 2020, AG Paxton, in his official capacity, filed a comment with
`30.
`the Federal Communications Commission urging it to construe a provision of federal law relevant
`to Twitter’s business (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) in a manner unfavorable
`to Twitter, because in his view Twitter had engaged in “online censorship” by flagging certain of
`
`8 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`President Trump’s Tweets regarding mail-in ballots. Ken Paxton, Re: RM-11862 Section 230 of
`the Communications Act of 1934 (September 2, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/8fbkpv8.
`Two weeks later, AG Paxton and nine other Republican attorneys general met with
`31.
`President Trump at the White House to discuss the alleged suppression of conservative voices on
`social media, including on Twitter. At the meeting, President Trump threatened that state attorneys
`general would take “concrete legal action” in response to Twitter’s decision to “restrict posts . . .
`from a President of the United States.” President Trump Discussion on Social Media, C-SPAN
`(Sept. 23, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/a9ed9frv.
`Twitter’s Permanent Suspension Of President Trump From Its Platform
`C.
`32.
`President Trump posted misleading and inaccurate information with increasing
`frequency after the November 3, 2020 election. President Trump’s activity on Twitter is
`voluminous and a matter of public record and we will not describe it here in full. In one example,
`however, hours after polls closed, he Tweeted that Democrats were trying to “STEAL” the
`election. Todd Spangler, Twitter, Facebook Slap Warning Labels on Trump’s Tweet Charging
`Democrats With Trying to ‘Steal’ Election, VARIETY (Nov. 3, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/6228kaez.
`On Thanksgiving Day, Trump tweeted that “This was a 100% RIGGED ELECTION.” Todd
`Spangler, Twitter, Twitter Has Flagged 200 of Trump’s Posts as ‘Disputed’ or Misleading Since
`It Make a Difference?, VARIETY
`(Nov.
`27,
`2020),
`Election Day. Does
`https://tinyurl.com/6228kaez. Days later, he assured his followers that “the 2020 Election was a
`total scam, we won by a lot (and will hopefully turn over the fraudulent result).” Id.
`In the weeks immediately following the November 2020 presidential election,
`33.
`Twitter added warning labels to about 200 such Tweets or Retweets about the election by President
`Trump, flagging them as containing “false, disputed or misleading information.” Id.
`On January 6, 2021, as Congress met to count the votes of the Electoral College,
`34.
`President Trump spoke to a crowd of supporters that included AG Paxton, Ken Paxton
`(@KenPaxtonTX), Twitter
`(Jan.
`5,
`2021)
`https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/
`1346533137879347200, repeatedly insisting that the election was “stolen” and encouraging the
`crowd to march to the Capitol Building. President Trump stated, “We fight like hell. And if you
`
`9 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” What Trump Said to Supporters
`on Jan. 6 Before Their Capitol Riot, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Jan. 12, 2021),
`https://tinyurl.com/z729wmb4.
`Shortly thereafter, a large mob of individuals, some of whom were armed, stormed
`35.
`the United States Capitol, breaking barricades and breaching the building, leading to multiple
`deaths. Lauren Leatherby, et. al., How a Presidential Rally Turned Into a Capitol Rampage, NEW
`YORK TIMES (Jan. 12, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/5dv528s7.
`During and after the riot, President Trump issued three Tweets from his Twitter
`36.
`account that Twitter judged had the potential to encourage violence. Twitter locked President
`Trump’s account for 12 hours and required that he delete the three Tweets that violated its policies.
`At the time, Twitter made it clear that any further violations of its policies would result in
`permanent suspension. Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety), Twitter (Jan. 6, 2021, 7:02 PM),
`https://tinyurl.com/a7byztnn.
`President Trump nonetheless continued to use Twitter to spread misinformation
`37.
`about the outcome of the election in the aftermath of the insurrection. On January 8, 2020, he
`Tweeted:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`And shortly thereafter, he Tweeted,
`
`
`
`After closely reviewing these Tweets and others from the President’s account, on
`38.
`January 8, 2021, Twitter decided to permanently suspend President Trump from its platform, citing
`repeated violations of its Glorification of Violence policy. Permanent suspension of
`@realDonaldTrump,
`Twitter
`Blog
`(January
`8,
`2021),
`https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html. Twitter explained that the
`President’s Tweets could “encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took
`place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Id.
`Twitter concluded that Trump’s Tweets “must be read in the context of broader
`39.
`events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by
`different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior
`from [his] account in recent weeks.” Id. It explained that the President’s Tweets could “encourage
`and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6,
`2021.” Id.
`Referencing the decision, Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, explained that although he
`40.
`“d[id] not celebrate or feel pride” in having to ban the President from Twitter, the company was
`finally forced to do so “based on threats to physical safety on and off Twitter.” Jack Dorsey
`(@jack), Twitter (January 13, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/2zdusb2e. He elaborated, “Offline harm
`as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and that is what drives our policy and enforcement
`above all.” Id.
`
`11 COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`Other major platforms also took action against content that they perceived to be
`41.
`glorifying or promoting violence on their platforms. Facebook and YouTube each suspended then-
`President Trump’s accounts on their platforms on January 7, and January 12, respectively. Daisuke
`Wakabayashi, YouTube Suspends Trump’s Channel for at Least 7 Days, New York Times (Jan.
`12, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/vux3cap9. On January 9, Apple and Google banned Parler—a social
`media platform that describes itself as “the world’s premier free speech platform”—from their app
`stores for failing to remove content that promoted violence, and Amazon banned Parler from its
`web-hosting service, citing repeated violations of its rules. Jack Nicas and Davey Alba, Amazon,
`Apple and Google Cut Off Parler, an App That Drew Trump Supporters, New York Times (Jan.
`13, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/34bjx3u7. Twitter took no action against Parler, which continues to
`maintain its own account on Twitter.
`AG Paxton did not agree with these content moderation decisions. On January 9,
`42.
`he posted a Tweet, which he knew would be viewed by Twitter’s leadership in California:
`
`
`Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX), Twitter (January 9, 2021, 2:58 P.M.),
`https://tinyurl.com/ud9t39p7. AG Paxton closed his Tweet by declaring: “As AG, I will fight
`them with all I’ve got.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`12 COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`D.
`
`AG Paxton Issues The CID And Commences An Investigation Into Twitter’s
`Internal Editorial Processes
`On January 13, 2021, AG Paxton issued CIDs to five leading technology
`43.
`companies, including Twitter and the three other companies that he had vowed to “fight” with “all
`I’ve got” just four days earlier. Ex. 1.
`The CID AG Paxton issued to Twitter declares on its face that he had opened an
`44.
`investigation regarding Twitter’s “policies and procedures relating to content moderation.” The
`CID seeks, among other things, “all . . . policies and procedures related to content moderation on
`your platform, including any policies or procedures that limit the reach or visibility of content
`intended for public viewers. Id. It also demanded that Twitter produce “a copy of all
`communications, internal and to third parties, you have had, between January 1, 2019, and the
`present regarding the social media platform Parler.com or Parler Inc.” Id.
`The CID had an initial response date of February 2, 2021. Id.
`45.
`46.
`AG Paxton issued a press release along with the CID (“Press Release”), which he
`then disseminated using his Twitter account, knowing that it would reach Twitter in California.
`The Press Release expressly links the issuance of the CID to Twitter’s suspension of then-President
`Trump’s account. Ex. 1.
`The Press Release states in part:
`47.
`For years, these Big Tech companies have silenced voices in the social media sphere and
`shut down competing companies and platforms. It has only grown worse in recent months.
`And just last week, this discriminatory action included the unprecedented step of removing
`and blocking President Donald Trump from online media platforms.
`
`On January 14, 2021, AG Paxton’s office served the CID on Twitter’s headquarters
`48.
`in San Francisco, California by certified mail. At the time, Twitter’s headquarters remained closed
`to all but a few necessary employees due in part to threats of violent protests in the vicinity of its
`offices arising from its content moderation decisions during and after the attack on the U.S.
`Capitol.
`After issuing the CID, AG Paxton continued to make his motive plain. In an
`49.
`interview at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference, he stated that his office is
`
`13 COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-01644-MMC Document 1 Filed 03/08/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`undertaking “an investigation . . . related to the whole issue of the president being de-platformed,”
`and described his goal of ensuring that content moderation decisions made by online platforms—
`including Twitter—be “regulated.” See Crossroads with Joshua Philipp, CPAC 2021: AG Ken
`Paxton on Immigration Lawsuit, and Protecting Constitution Against Federal Orders (Feb. 27,
`2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4JzxYuoOo.
`Despite believing the CID was improper and retaliatory, Twitter made a good faith
`50.
`effort to engage with AG Paxton’s office in an attempt to narrow the scope of the CID in an
`appropriate manner. Thus, Twitter engaged external counsel (“Counsel”) to formulate its
`response.
`The CID is an official demand from a state official and expressly threatened legal
`51.
`action in the event of noncompliance. Thus, Twitter expected that noncompliance would result in
`an enforcement action or even in AG Paxton filing suit against Twitter under the Texas statutes
`named in the CID.
`Twitter’s Subsequent Interactions With The Texas Attorney General’s Office
`E.
`52.
`Counsel arranged for an extension of the response date to March 2, 2021, and
`participated in telephonic meet-and-confers with AG Paxton’s office on February 8 and 24, 2021.
`During the February 24, 2021 meeting, lawyers from AG Paxton’s office declined
`53.
`to narrow the CID. When Twitter pointed out that the CID sought all of Twitter’s internal content
`moderation policies, including policies on such subjects as suicide and self harm—whereas the
`press release addressed only political bias—AG Paxton’s office declined Counsel’s request to
`narrow the CID.
`54. With respect to the CID’s demand for Twitter documents mentioning Parler,
`Twitter’s Counsel pointed out that Twitter had not taken any steps to suspend Parler’s Twitter
`account or otherwise required Parler to remove any content from Twitter’s platform. Nevertheless,
`AG Paxton’s office still pressed for Twitter