Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 118
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Laura Loomer, as an individual, Laura
`Loomer, in her capacity as a Candidate
`for United States Congress, and Laura
`Loomer for Congress, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 22-cv-2646
`FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Civil RICO
`Civil RICO Conspiracy
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`____________________________________:
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta f/k/a
`Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, in his
`capacity as CEO of Facebook, Inc. and as
`an individual, Twitter, Inc., and
`Jack Dorsey, in his capacity as former
`CEO of Twitter, Inc. and as an individual,
`The Proctor & Gamble Company, Does
`1-100, Individuals,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Laura Loomer, as an individual, Laura
`Loomer, in her capacity as a Candidate
`for United States Congress, and Laura
`Loomer for Congress, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 22-cv-2646
`FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Civil RICO
`Civil RICO Conspiracy
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`____________________________________:
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta f/k/a
`Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, in his
`capacity as CEO of Facebook, Inc. and as
`an individual, Twitter, Inc., and
`Jack Dorsey, in his capacity as former
`CEO of Twitter, Inc. and as an individual,
`The Proctor & Gamble Company, Does
`1-100, Individuals,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 118
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`In a stunning admission days ago on The Joe Rogan Experience, Mark Zuckerberg
`
`admitted what many Americans have long suspected – that the decision by social
`
`media companies to censor news coverage about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal
`
`for the crucial weeks prior to the 2020 Presidential election – was prompted by
`
`agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation warning them about “Russian
`
`disinformation.” This confirmed what has become one of the worst-kept secrets in
`
`modern American political history: that individuals within the United States
`
`government’s federal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. intelligence apparatus
`
`conspired with the big-tech giants to illegally interfere with the 2020 Presidential
`
`election.
`
`2.
`
`Also in the last few weeks, prominent COVID-19 vaccine skeptic Alex Berenson
`
`revealed that members of President Joe Biden’s administration illegally conspired
`
`with Twitter to ensure that he was banned from its platform. This was revealed from
`
`internal Twitter Slack messages and came to light only because Mr. Berenson
`
`brought suit against Twitter. In a rare move, Twitter settled the suit with Mr.
`
`Berenson and allowed him back on the platform, presumably to avoid additional
`
`harmful discovery proving misconduct and direct coordination and conspiracy to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 118
`
`ban conservative individuals by big-tech companies and the U.S. government
`
`coming to light.
`
`3.
`
`These are just the latest two examples of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving social
`
`media giants, other elements in corporate America and high-level officials in the
`
`Executive Branch of the United States government, to unlawfully censor
`
`conservative voices and interfere with American elections.
`
`4.
`
`This action is brought on behalf of one of the primary victims of that conspiracy,
`
`two-time U.S. Congressional candidate Laura Loomer, who ran for office in the
`
`State of Florida and is also a resident of the State of Florida.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Laura Loomer (Ms. Loomer) is an individual and a citizen and resident of
`
`the State of Florida.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Laura Loomer (Candidate Loomer) was the Republican Party nominee for
`
`U.S. House Florida District 21 for the 2020 General Election of the United States of
`
`America.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 118
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Candidate Loomer was a federal candidate for the Republican Party
`
`nomination for U.S. House Florida District 11 for the 2022 Primary Election in the
`
`State of Florida.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Laura Loomer for Congress, Inc. is a Florida corporation that operates under
`
`the registered trade name, Laura Loomer for Congress, Inc.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs Laura Loomer and Laura Loomer for Congress, Inc. are entities engaged
`
`in activities that affect interstate and foreign commerce.
`
`10.
`
`Ms. Loomer is the Chief Executive Officer of Laura Loomer for Congress, Inc.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., d/b/a Meta, f/k/a Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) is
`
`incorporated in the state of Delaware with its principal place of business located at
`
`1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Facebook does substantial business in
`
`all 50 states including the Northern District of California and the state of Florida.
`
`Defendant Mark Zuckerberg is the Chairman and CEO of Facebook and a resident
`
`12.
`
`of the State of California.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 118
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Twitter, Inc. is incorporated in the state of Delaware with its principal
`
`place of business located at 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California.
`
`Twitter does substantial business in all 50 states, including the Northern District of
`
`California and the State of Florida.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Jack Dorsey is the former CEO of Twitter, Inc. and a resident of the
`
`State of California.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant The Proctor & Gamble Company is incorporated in the state of Ohio
`
`with its principal place of business located at 1 Proctor & Gamble Plaza,
`
`Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202. Proctor & Gamble does substantial business in all 50
`
`states, including the Northern District of California and the State of Florida.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants Does 1-100 are persons within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
`
`potentially others within the Executive Branch of the United States government and
`
`corporate America, including executives and advertising officials at Proctor &
`
`Gamble, who conspired with other Defendants to commit the unlawful acts
`
`described herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 118
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to California Code
`
`of Civil Procedure 410.10 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, because
`
`Defendants are domiciled, have transacted business, continue to transact business,
`
`and have caused injury within the state and elsewhere.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1391 because this is a
`
`judicial district in which a Defendant resides, and all Defendants are residents of the
`
`State in which the district is located.
`
`19.
`
`This Court’s jurisdiction and venue are proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28
`
`U.S.C. §1332 because the matter in controversy violates RICO statutes,1 exceeds the
`
`value of $75,000, and is between citizens and corporations of different states,
`
`specifically Florida and California.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – 1968
`2 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2020)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 7 of 118
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Loomer has sued Defendant Facebook and Defendant Twitter multiple
`
`times in multiple venues including the Northern District of California and the
`
`Southern District of Florida.
`
`21.
`
`On August 29, 2018, Plaintiff Loomer along with Freedom Watch, Inc. sued Apple
`
`Inc., Google Inc., Facebook Inc., and Twitter Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Columbia for (1) Violation of Sections 1 & 2 of the Sherman Act – Illegal
`
`Agreement in Restraint of Trade, (2) Discrimination in Violation of D.C. Code § 2-
`
`1403.16, and (3) violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1983, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari but with substantial commentary
`
`relevant to the instant matter regarding the Defendants herein, provided by Justice
`
`Thomas in a related concurring opinion.3
`
`22.
`
`On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff Loomer sued Facebook Inc. in the Southern District of
`
`Florida for Defamation, and the court transferred the case to this Court where
`
`Plaintiff Loomer’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss was granted on August 14, 2020.4
`
`
`3 Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 593 U.S. ______ (2021) (Thomas, J. concurring).
`4 Loomer v. Facebook, Inc., 4:20-cv-03154 (2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 8 of 118
`
`23.
`
`On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff Ms. Loomer along with Illoominate Media, Inc. sued
`
`CAIR Foundation, Twitter, Inc., John Does 1-5, and CAIR Florida, Inc. in the
`
`Southern District of Florida for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Tortious Interference
`
`with Advantageous Business Relationship, (3) Unlawful Agreement in Restraint of
`
`Trade, (4) Civil Conspiracy, and (5) violating Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
`
`Practices Act, though Defendant Twitter was never served and was dismissed from
`
`the case, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of CAIR Foundation.
`
`24.
`
`While this action is maintained between some of the same parties as these prior
`
`lawsuits, this action does not replicate any claims from prior lawsuits, and the acts
`
`giving rise to the causes of action herein overlap with those in these prior lawsuits
`
`only to the extent to which Defendants’ regular course of business engaged in the
`
`commission of predicate acts of racketeering.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 9 of 118
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Social Media Platforms
`
`25.
`
`“Social media platforms have transformed into the new public town square.”5
`
`26.
`
`“Social media platforms have become as important for conveying public opinion as
`
`public utilities are for supporting modern society.”6
`
`27.
`
`“Social media platforms hold a unique place in preserving first amendment
`
`protections for all Floridians and should be treated similarly to common carriers.”7
`
`28.
`
`“Social media platforms that unfairly censor, shadow ban, deplatform, or apply post-
`
`prioritization algorithms to Florida candidates, Florida users, or Florida residents are
`
`not acting in good faith.”8
`
`29.
`
`“Social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow banned, deplatformed, and
`
`applied post-prioritization algorithms to Floridians.”9
`
`
`5 Section 1.4., FL. S.B. 7072. 2021 Legislature. On May 24, 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida
`Legislature signed Florida Senate Bill 7072 into law.
`6 Section 1.5., FL. S.B. 7072. 2021 Legislature.
`7 Section 1.6., FL. S.B. 7072. 2021 Legislature.
`8 Section 1.7., FL. S.B. 7072. 2021 Legislature.
`9 Section 1.9., FL. S.B. 7072. 2021 Legislature.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 10 of 118
`
`“The state has a substantial interest in protecting its residents from inconsistent and
`
`30.
`
`unfair actions by social media platforms.”10
`
`31.
`
`Defendants Facebook and Twitter “are at bottom communications networks and they
`
`‘carry’ information from one user to another.”11
`
`32.
`
`Defendants Facebook and Twitter are digital platforms that “hold themselves out as
`
`organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public” that
`
`“cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of the information they merely
`
`distribute.”12
`
`33.
`
`“When a user does not already know exactly where to find something on the Internet
`
`– and users rarely do – Google is the gatekeeper between the user and the speech of
`
`the others 90% of the time.”13
`
`34.
`
`The U.S. Department of Justice claims Google has long broken the law in its quest
`
`to remain “the gateway to the internet” and has disadvantaged competitors in an
`
`
`10 Section 1.10., FL. S.B. 7072. 2021 Legislature.
`11 Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. 593 U.S. ______ (2021) (Thomas, J. concurring).
`12 Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. 593 U.S. ______ (2021) (Thomas, J. concurring).
`13 Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. 593 U.S. ______ (2021) (Thomas, J. concurring).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 11 of 118
`
`effort to sell more online search ads, and in December 2021, more than 200
`
`newspapers filed suit against Facebook and Google, who were accused of unfairly
`
`manipulating the advertising market and siphoning away their revenue.14
`
`35.
`
`“Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through
`
`similar means.”15
`
`36.
`
`“Some courts have misconstrued [47 U.S.C. §230] to give digital platforms
`
`immunity for bad faith removal of third-party content.”16
`
`
`
`SCHEMES AND GOALS OF COMMUNITY MEDIA ENTERPRISE
`
`37.
`
`Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies, including but not limited to
`
`Instagram, Google Inc. and YouTube, along with other members of corporate
`
`America including Proctor & Gamble, as well as individuals within the FBI and
`
`other parts of the Executive Branch of the United States government are members
`
`of an enterprise which has used and continues to fraudulently use the pretext of “hate
`
`
`14 Zilber, Ariel. “Facebook and Google accused of ‘secret deal’ to carve up ad empire,” New York Post. January 14,
`2022; Steigrad, Alexandra. “Over 200 newspapers are suing Facebook and Google for killing their advertising,”
`New York Post. December 8, 2021.
`15 Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. 593 U.S. ______ (2021) (Thomas, J. concurring).
`16 Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC. 592 U.S. ______ (2020) (Thomas, J., statement
`respecting denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 7-8).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 12 of 118
`
`speech” as cover for committing and continuing to commit illegal predicate acts
`
`under the RICO statutes on Ms. Loomer, Candidate Loomer, Loomer Campaign, and
`
`many others, including their subscriber base as a whole as a distinct group of victims,
`
`in order to further multiple fraudulent schemes, including but not limited to schemes
`
`involving extortion, wire fraud, racketeering, and advocating the overthrow of
`
`government.
`
`38.
`
`The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) is an American multinational consumer
`
`goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and incorporated in Ohio, that
`
`engages in activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce and is one of
`
`Facebook’s largest corporate advertisement purchasers.17
`
`39.
`
`Google Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business located
`
`at 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, California.
`
`40.
`
`In 2018, according to the attorneys general for Texas, fourteen (14) other states, and
`
`Puerto Rico, Defendant Zuckerberg and his counterpart at Google, CEO Sundar
`
`Pichai, secretly conspired and acted along with Facebook CFO Sheryl Sandberg to
`
`
`17 “Procter & Gamble to stay silent on ad decisions as Facebook boycott grows,” Reuters. July 1, 2020.
`https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/procter-gamble-to-stay-silent-on-ads-amid-facebook-boycott/.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 13 of 118
`
`guarantee Defendant Facebook would both bid in and win a fixed percentage of ad
`
`auctions.18
`
`41.
`
`These fifteen (15) state attorneys general also claim that Google intentionally misled
`
`publishers and advertisers for years about how it prices and executes its ad auctions
`
`by creating secret algorithms that increased prices for buyers while deflating revenue
`
`for some advertisers.19
`
`42.
`
`In October 2018, the New York Times reported on an investigation which found that
`
`governments were successfully using Twitter to promote favorable content, attack
`
`critical voices, and otherwise shape what average people found when online.20
`
`43.
`
`On or about October 15, 2019, Defendant Facebook paid five billion dollars
`
`($5,000,000,000) in fines after the United States government discovered it engaged
`
`in a previous fraudulent pretextual scheme perpetuated against its subscriber base as
`
`a whole.21
`
`
`18 Zilber, Ariel. “Facebook and Google accused of ‘secret deal’ to carve up ad empire,” New York Post. January 14,
`2022; see also In Re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation. Civil Action No.: 1:21-md-03010 Second
`Amended Complaint, (SDNY 2021).
`19 Zilber, Ariel. “Facebook and Google accused of ‘secret deal’ to carve up ad empire,” New York Post. January 14,
`2022; see also In Re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation. Civil Action No.: 1:21-md-03010, Second
`Amended Complaint, (SDNY 2021).
`20 Hubbard, Ben. “Why Spy on Twitter? For Saudi Arabia, It’s the Town Square,” The New York Times. November
`7, 2019.
`21 Gardner, Eriq. “Judge Urged to Reject "Broad Immunity" for Facebook,” The Hollywood Reporter. October 15,
`2019.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 14 of 118
`
`44.
`
`On or about November 8, 2019, Defendant Facebook was reported to have engaged
`
`in another fraudulent scheme called “The Switcharoo Plan,” wherein Facebook
`
`executives intentionally misled its partnering developers to rely on its services to
`
`then undermine them under the false pretext of promoting privacy.22
`
`45.
`
`On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Defendant Facebook was
`
`potentially civilly liable for human trafficking violations which would constitute
`
`predicate acts under civil RICO statutes.23
`
`46.
`
`Meta24, the company formerly known as Facebook Inc., privately announced on
`
`January 31, 2022, that users can use its platforms to solicit human smugglers.25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22 Paul, Katie and Hosenball, Mark. “Facebook executives planned 'switcharoo' on data policy change: court filings,”
`Reuters. November 6, 2019; Schechner, Sam and Olson, Parmy. “Facebook Feared WhatsApp Threat Ahead of 2014
`Purchase, Documents Show: Internal emails could serve as fodder for regulators studying social network’s business
`practices,” The Wall Street Journal. November 6, 2019; Newton, Casey. “How leaked court documents reveal
`Facebook’s fundamental paranoia: The company’s anticompetitive behavior is rooted in a deep sense of fear that it’s
`vulnerable to rivals,” The Verge. November 8, 2019.
`23 In Re Facebook, Inc. and Facebook, Inc. d/b/a Instagram, Relators, 20-0434 (Tex. 2021).
`24 On October 28, 2021, Defendant Zuckerberg changed the name of Facebook Inc. to Meta.
`25 Simonson, Joseph. “Meta Will Allow Solicitation of Human Smuggling on Its Platforms - Policy comes amid
`surge in Facebook groups devoted to human smuggling,” Washington Free Beacon. February 1, 2022.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 15 of 118
`
`PROMISES OF COMMUNITY MEDIA ENTERPRISE
`
`47.
`
`On or about September 5, 2018, Defendant Dorsey testified before Congress, “We
`
`believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially.
`
`We do not shadowban anyone based on political ideology.”26
`
`48.
`
`On or about September 12, 2019, Google announced it would alter its algorithms to
`
`boost articles containing original reporting from sources with positive reputations
`
`that have received awards.27
`
`49.
`
`On or about September 21, 2019, Nick Clegg, Facebook VP of Global Affairs and
`
`Communication, announced that Facebook would not submit speech by politicians
`
`to its new “independent” fact checkers, and “generally allow it on the platform even
`
`when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules.”28
`
`50.
`
`On September 21, 2019, Clegg announced an exception to this policy, namely that,
`
`“when a politician shares previously debunked content including links, videos and
`
`
`26 Harper, Cindy. “Senator Hawley wants Twitter to explain its blacklists: Twitter told Congress it doesn't shadowban,”
`Reclaim The Net. July 19, 2020.
`27 Neidig, Harper. “Google to boost articles with 'original reporting' in search results,” The Hill. September 12, 2019.
`28 Lemieux, Melissa. “Facebook Announces It Will Not Be Submitting Content From Politicians To Independent
`Fact Checking,” Newsweek. September 24, 2019.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 16 of 118
`
`photos, we plan to demote that content, display related information from fact-
`
`checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements.”29
`
`51.
`
`On September 21, 2019, Clegg announced that there remained a second exemption
`
`for newsworthiness, which Facebook has had in place since 2016.30
`
`52.
`
`On September 24, 2019, Clegg announced, “I know some people will say we should
`
`go further that we are wrong to allow politicians to use our platform to say nasty
`
`things or make false claims. But imagine the reverse. Would it be acceptable to
`
`society at large to have a private company in effect become a self-appointed referee
`
`for everything that politicians say? I don’t believe it would be. In open democracies,
`
`voters rightly believe that, as a general rule, they should be able to judge what
`
`politicians say themselves.”31
`
`53.
`
`On or about September 24, 2019, Defendant Facebook stated that it determines
`
`whether content from politicians is allowed on its site based upon a country and
`
`situational specific balancing test evaluating the public interest value of the piece of
`
`
`29 Lemieux, Melissa. “Facebook Announces It Will Not Be Submitting Content From Politicians To Independent
`Fact Checking,” Newsweek. September 24, 2019.
`30 Lemieux, Melissa. “Facebook Announces It Will Not Be Submitting Content From Politicians To Independent
`Fact Checking,” Newsweek. September 24, 2019.
`31 Robertson, Adi. “Facebook Announces It Will Not Be Submitting Content From Politicians To Independent Fact
`Checking,” The Verge. September 24, 2019.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 17 of 118
`
`speech against the risk of harm, reliant on such factors as whether the country is at
`
`war or involved in an election.32
`
`54.
`
`On or about October 5, 2019, Defendant Facebook’s Vice President of Global
`
`Affairs and Communication Nick Clegg stated “[Facebook] can’t be a policeman on
`
`the internet saying what is acceptable or what is absolutely true. The freedom to say
`
`stupid things is the freedom of an open society.”33
`
`55.
`
`On or about October 7, 2019, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s global lead for legal, policy,
`
`and trust and safety, stated that Twitter’s fundamental mission is to serve the public
`
`conversation and permit “as many people in the world as possible for engaging on a
`
`public platform and it means that we need to be open to as many viewpoints as
`
`possible.”34
`
`56.
`
`On October 17, 2019, Defendant Mark Zuckerberg said, “People worry, and I worry
`
`deeply, too, about an erosion of truth. At the same time, I don’t think people want to
`
`live in a world where you can only say things that tech companies decide are 100
`
`
`32 Robertson, Adi. “Facebook Announces It Will Not Be Submitting Content From Politicians To Independent Fact
`Checking,” The Verge. September 24, 2019.
`33 Rankovic, Didi. “Contradicting their recent history, Facebook VP Nick Clegg says they don’t want to police the
`internet,” Reclaim The Net. October 5, 2019.
`34 Koebler, Jason. “How Twitter Sees Itself: Multiple current and former Twitter employees, including executives,
`explain how Twitter really positions itself and its responsibilities around moderating speech.” Motherboard: Tech by
`Vice. October 7, 2019.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 18 of 118
`
`percent true.”35
`
`57.
`
`On or about November 4, 2019, Defendant Twitter’s government relations team told
`
`candidates seeking verification that Twitter would not give new contenders a “blue
`
`checkmark” until after the contenders won a state primary.36
`
`58.
`
`On or about November 15, 2019, in a U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee
`
`Hearing, Twitter Public Policy manager Kevin Kane denied any type of censorship
`
`on Twitter and stated, “Twitter was born to serve the entire public conversation.” 37
`
`59.
`
`On or about December 12, 2019, Defendant Twitter announced it would verify all
`
`candidates running for House, Senate, or governor.38
`
`60.
`
`On or about December 14, 2019, Defendant Twitter announced its Trust and Safety
`
`Council will cover specific real-world harm concerns, such as safety, online
`
`
`35 Romm, Tony. “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says in interview he fears ‘erosion of truth’ but defends allowing
`politicians to lie in ads,” The Washington Post. October 17, 2019.
`36 Ahuja, Siddak. “Twitter censors anti-establishment views,” The Post Millennial. November 4, 2019.
`37 Bulleri, Fabrizio. “Rep. Jim Banks questions Twitter on why it allows scams but censors political speech,”
`Reclaim The Net. November 15, 2019.
`38 Birnbaum, Emily. “Twitter to start verifying candidates when they qualify for primary election,” The Hill.
`December 12, 2019.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 19 of 118
`
`harassment, human and digital rights, child sexual exploitation, suicide prevention,
`
`mental health, and “broaden our interpretation of dehumanization.”39
`
`61.
`
`On or about May 27, 2020, U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz stated that Twitter is
`
`“not merely going to provide a place for people to share their ideas, they’re going to
`
`add their analysis to those ideas.” 40
`
`
`
`62.
`
`On or about May 28, 2020, Brandon Borrman, Twitter’s vice president of global
`
`communications, stated that Twitter’s policy violation review system is set up to
`
`keep enforcement decisions independent from the teams responsible for public and
`
`government relations.41
`
`63.
`
`On July 29, 2020, Defendant Zuckerberg said, “We're very focused on fighting
`
`against election interference, and we're also very focused on fighting against hate
`
`speech.”42
`
`
`
`
`39 Rankovic, Didi. “Twitter to expand its “Trust and Safety Council”,” Reclaim The Net. December 14, 2019.
`40 Crisp, Elizabeth. “Donald Trump to Issue Social Media Executive Order After Twitter Fact-Checks Tweets,”
`Newsweek. May 27, 2020.
`41 Oremus, Will. “Inside Twitter’s Decision to Fact-Check Trump’s Tweets,” OneZero. May 28, 2020.
`42 Czachor, Emily. “Facebook Removes Most Hate Speech Before People See It, Zuckerberg Tells Congress,”
`Newsweek. July 29, 2020; Note also that the US Supreme Court has declined to recognize a hate speech exception to
`protected speech, e.g. Matal v Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 20 of 118
`
`On July 29, 2020, Facebook provided $500,000 in funding to create the “Global
`
`64.
`
`Network Against Hate.”
`
`65.
`
`The publicly stated purpose of the “Global Network Against Hate” is to counter
`
`emerging trends in online extremism and unapproved COVID-19 content by
`
`developing strategies, policies, and tools.43
`
`66.
`
`On June 5, 2021, Defendant Twitter stated that access to its platform “is an essential
`
`human right in modern society.”44
`
`a. Community Guidelines
`
`67.
`
`Shadow banning is the practice of banning a user’s content such that it is difficult or
`
`impossible for others on a social media platform to discover or view it, while the
`
`user is unaware that the banning is occurring.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43 Parker, Tom. “Facebook gives $500,000 to Ontario university project that says coronavirus will drive online hate:
`The money is meant to help create a knowledge hub on "hate and violent extremism." Reclaim The Net. July 29,
`2020.
`44 See Twitter Public Policy @Policy, The voice of Twitter's Global Public Policy team, 8:17 am, June 5, 2021.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 21 of 118
`
`68.
`
`Defendant Twitter’s “Civic Integrity Policy” bars users from “manipulating or
`
`interfering in elections or other civic processes,” such as by posting misleading
`
`information that could dissuade people from participating in an election.45
`
`69.
`
`Defendant Twitter’s civic integrity policy applies special fact-checking scrutiny to
`
`tweets that might interfere with people’s participation in democratic processes, a
`
`level of scrutiny only shared with the policy of harmful information related to
`
`COVID 19.46
`
`70.
`
`According to Twitter’s Sensitive Media Policy, sharing “graphic violence, adult
`
`content, and hateful imagery” results in content potentially being hidden behind a
`
`“sensitive media” warning.47
`
`71.
`
`According to Facebook’s Bullying Policy on March 30, 2022, which expressly “does
`
`not apply to individuals who are part of designated organizations under the
`
`Dangerous Organizations and Individuals policy,” comparing any private individual
`
`
`45 “Twitter labels Trump's false claims with warning for first time,” The Guardian. May 26, 2020.
`https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/26/trump-twitter-fact-check-warning-label
`46 Oremus, Will. “Inside Twitter’s Decision to Fact-Check Trump’s Tweets,” OneZero. May 28, 2020.
`47 Parker, Tom. “Twitter hides James O’Keefe tweet about CNN investigative report behind “sensitive media”
`notice: O’Keefe’s previous investigative reports have been censored by other tech giants after they responded to
`questionable privacy complaints,” Reclaim The Net. October 14, 2019.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 22 of 118
`
`to an animal considered “culturally inferior” is a violation that does not require
`
`reporting to be removed.48
`
`72.
`
`On or about October 21, 2019, Defendant Facebook announced that it removes
`
`accounts based on behavior regardless of content pursuant to its “inauthentic
`
`behavior policy”.49
`
`73.
`
`On or about October 26, 2019, Defendant Facebook reported that speech content
`
`from political action groups, rather than the politicians themselves, was subject to
`
`third-party content review.50
`
`74.
`
`As of October 31, 2019, Defendant Facebook’s policy was to count any ad that
`
`advocates for or against a social issue as a political ad, and it defined social issues
`
`to include topics like education, crime, and health. A political health ad was defined
`
`to include any “discussion, debate, and/or advocacy for or against topics including
`
`but not limited to healthcare reform and access to healthcare.”51
`
`
`
`
`48 https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/bullying-harassment/ on March 30, 2022.
`49 Miller, Maggie. “Facebook takes down Russian, Iranian accounts trying to interfere in 2020,” The Hill. October
`21, 2019.
`50 “Facebook removes false ad from Pac claiming Graham backs Green New Deal,” The Guardian. October 26,
`2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/26/facebook-lindsey-graham-green-new-deal-ad
`51 “Facebook under fire after ads for anti-HIV drug PrEP deemed political,” The Guardian. October 31, 2019.
`https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/31/facebook-prep-ads-instagram-political
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 23 of 118
`
`75.
`
`On or about November 4, 2019, Carlos Monje, Jr., U.S. policy director for Twitter,
`
`stated that Twitter allows extremist groups engaged in active peace resolution
`
`processes and groups elected to public office to remain online.52
`
`76.
`
`On or about November 9, 2019, Defendant Facebook announced that its
`
`“coordinating harm policy” prohibited any content that might disclose the identity
`
`of a potential witness, informant, or activist related to a whistleblower matter and
`
`subsequently removed content discussing whether the individuals should be publicly
`
`identified as “coordinating harm and promoting crime.”53
`
`77.
`
`On or about November 27, 2019, Defendant Facebook stated that an advertisement
`
`for a book about historical military headwear “is about social issues, elections or
`
`politics, based on the definition we’re using for enforcement.”54
`
`78.
`
`On or about December 14, 2019, Defendant Twitter announced a series of actions
`
`that would trigger “enforcement action for any account,” including promoting
`
`
`52 Birnbaum, Emily. “Twitter takes down Hamas, Hezbollah-affiliated accounts after lawmaker pressure,” The Hill.
`November 4, 2019.
`53 Harper, Cindy. “Facebook is deleting journalism in real-time: This is unprecedented,” Reclaim The Net.
`November 9, 2019.
`54 Suciu, Peter. “A Military History Book Is Too Political,” Forbes. November 27, 2019.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02646-LB Document 69 Filed 08/29/22 Page 24 of 118
`
`terrorism, clear and direct threats of violence against an individual, posting private
`
`information, sharing intimate photos or videos of a person without their consent,
`
`material involving child sexual exploitation, and any message encouraging or
`
`promoting self-harm. 55
`
`79.
`
`On or about January 1, 2020, Twitter updated its terms of service to grant itself the
`
`right to “limit distribution or visibility of any content on the service,” in addition to
`
`removing or refusing to distri
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
