JS 44 (Rev. 09/19)
`
`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 19
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadin&s or other papers as required by law. except as
`provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is requITed for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
`purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.
`(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`
`Cameron L. Atkinson
`
`.=L=it=ch"'f"'ie=l=d _____ _
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`FACEBOOK. INC. and MARK ZUCKERBERG
`
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOL YED.
`
`NOTE:
`
`Attorneys (If Known)
`
`(c) Attorneys (Firm Name. Address. and Telephone Number)
`Norman A. Pattis, Pattis & Smith. LLC
`383 Orange Street. New Haven, Ct 06511
`203-393-3017
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (place an "X" in One Box Only)
`
`01 U.S . Govenunent
`Plaintiff
`
`Qlf:3 Federal Question
`(U.S. Government Not a Party)
`
`III. CITIZENSIDP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (place an "X" in One Boxfor Plaintiff
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`and One Box for Defendant)
`PTF DEF
`PTF
`DEF
`tX I
`0
`1
`0 4
`0 4
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`IncOIporated or Principal Place
`of Business In This State
`
`02 U.S. Government
`Defendant
`
`a4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`a 2
`
`0
`
`2
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`
`o 5 05
`
`o 6 06
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Forei m Count.r\·
`
`o 3
`
`a
`
`3 Foreign Nation
`
`FORFEITURElPENAL-lY
`a 625 Drug Related Seizure
`of Property 21 USC 881
`a 690 Other
`
`ABOR
`o 710 Fair Labor Standards
`Act
`o 720 LaborlManagement
`Relations
`o 740 Railway Labor Act
`o 751 Family and Medical
`Leave Act
`o 790 Other Labor Litigation
`a 791 Employee Retirement
`Income Security Act
`
`IMMIGRATION
`o 462 Naturalization Application
`o 465 Other Immigration
`Actions
`
`PROPER I"Y RIGHTS"
`o 820 Copyrights
`o 830 Patent
`o 835 Patent - Abbreviated
`New Drug Application
`o 840 Trademark
`SOCIAL SECURITY
`o 861 IDA (J395fl)
`o 862 Black Lung (923)
`o 863 DlWCIDIWW (405(g)
`o 864 SSID Title XVI
`a 865 RSI (405(g»)
`
`r. N
`cr kh
`fS "tC d D
`ature 0
`o e escn ptlOns.
`ere or:
`IC
`UI
`OTHER STATLTES
`BANKRUPTCY
`o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`o 375 False Claims Act
`o 423 Withdrawal
`o 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
`28 USC 157
`3729(a»
`o 400 State Reapportionment
`o 410 Antitrust
`o 430 Banks and Banking
`o 450 Commerce
`o 460 Deportation
`a 470 Racketeer Influenced and
`Corrupt Organizations
`o 480 Consumer Credit
`(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
`o 485 Telephone Consumer
`Protection Act
`o 490 Cable/Sat TV
`o 850 Securities!Commodities!
`Exchange
`o 890 Other Statutory Actions
`o 891 Agricultural Acts
`o 893 Environmental Matters
`o 895 Freedom of Information
`Act
`o 896 Arbitration
`o 899 Administrative Procedure
`Act/Review or Appeal of
`Agency Decision
`o 950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes
`
`FEDERAL TAX SUITS
`o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
`or Defendant)
`o 87llRS-ThirdParty
`26 USC 7609
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`o 365 Personal Injury -
`Product Liability
`o 367 Health Carel
`Pharmaceutical
`Personal Injury
`Product Liability
`o 368 Asbestos Personal
`Injwy Product
`Liability
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`o 370 Other Fraud
`o 371 Truth in Lending
`o 380 Other Personal
`Property Damage
`o 385 Property Damage
`Product Liability
`
`.
`(place an 'X" in o neBoxOny)
`IV NATURE OF SUIT
`TORTS
`CONTRACT
`o 110 Insurance
`PERSONAL INJURY
`o 310 Airplane
`o 120Marine
`o 315 Airplane Product
`o 130 Miller Act
`o 140 Negotiable Instrument
`Liability
`a 150 Recovery of Overpayment o 320 Assault. Libel &
`& Enforcement of Judgment
`Slander
`o 330 Federal Employers'
`o 151 Medicare Act
`o 152 Recovery of Defaulted
`Liability
`o 340 Marine
`Student Loans
`o 345 Marine Product
`(Excludes Veterans)
`o 153 Recovery of Overpayment
`Liability
`o 350 Motor Vehicle
`of Veteran' s Benefits
`o 355 Motor Vehicle
`o 160 Stockholders' Suits
`o 190 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`o 195 Contract Product Liability
`a 360 Other Personal
`Injury
`a 196 Franchise
`a 362 Personal Injwy -
`Medical Malpractice
`PRISONER PETITIONS
`CIVIL RlGIr S
`~ 440 Other Civil Rights
`Habeas Corpus:
`o 463 Alien Detainee
`0441 Voting
`o 510 Motions to Vacate
`o 442 Employment
`o 443 Housing!
`Sentence
`o 530 General
`Accommodations
`a 445 Amer. wlDisabilities - o 535 Death Penalty
`Employment
`Other:
`o 446 Amer. wlDisabilities - o 540 Mandamus & Other
`o 550 Civil Rights
`Other
`o 448 Education
`a 555 Prison Condition
`o 560 Civil Detainee -
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`REAL PROPERlY
`o 210 Land Condemnation
`o 220 Foreclosure
`o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
`o 240 Torts to Land
`o 245 Tort Product Liability
`a 290 All Other Real Property
`
`V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
`~ 1 Original
`D 2 Removed from
`Proceeding
`State Court
`
`D 3 Remanded from
`Appellate Court
`
`D 6 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Transfer
`
`D 8 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Direct File
`
`D 4 Reinstated or D 5 Transferred from
`Reopened
`Another District
`(specify)
`Cite the U .S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diverslly) :
`42 U.s.C. Section 1983 and 47 U.s.C. Section 230
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ... B-r~ie~fd~e-sc-r~ip.~tio-n-o~f-ca-u-se-:----------------------------------
`Plaintiff claims violation of his Frist Amendemnt right. violation of Communications Decency Act
`o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
`DEMAND $
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`JURY DEMAND:
`~ Yes
`DNo
`
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
`IF ANY
`
`UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`
`(See instructions):
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`DATE
`11/1212019
`FOR OFFICE USE NLY
`
`RECElPT#
`
`AMOUNT
`
`APPLYING IFP
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG. JUDGE
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 19
`
`UNITED STATED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`CAMERON L. ATKINSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CV ________________ _
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`MARK ZUCKERBERG,
`Defendants.
`
`November 12, 2019
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for money damages and injunctive relief against Facebook,
`
`a social media company and personal data harvester, and its founder and current chief
`
`executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg. The defendants seek to, and do, have quasi-
`
`monopolistic control of a quintessential public communications forum, offering users
`
`access to their service free of charge while surreptitiously selling data gathered from the
`
`users to third parties for a profit. The defendants enter into adhesion contracts with users,
`
`arrogating unto the defendants an opaque right to ban any user for violating the
`
`defendants' so-called "community standards." The Plaintiff has been denied the ability to
`
`speak publicly on a matter of grave public importance based on the perceived content of
`
`the ideas he sought to express. The Plaintiff claims a violation of his rights under the First
`
`Amendment to the United States Constitution, violations of the Communications Decency
`
`Act, statutory fraud, theft, a breach of the implied warranty of fair dealing, and violations
`
`of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA).
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 3 of 19
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`2.
`
`The Court properly possesses jurisdiction on both federal question and
`
`diversity of citizenship grounds. Venue is appropriate as a substantial part of the events
`
`that give rise to the claim occurred in the judicial district of Connecticut. The Claim arises
`
`under 42 Section 1983 and 47 U.S.C Section 230.
`
`Parties
`
`3.
`
`The Plaintiff, Cameron L. Atkinson, is an adult resident of New Haven
`
`County, Connecticut. At the time of this action being brought, he is a third-year law student
`
`at Quinnipiac University School of Law, located in North Haven, Connecticut.
`
`4.
`
`Facebook, Inc., is a social media company headquartered in Menlo Park,
`
`California. It operates a social media company serving more than 2.3 billion users
`
`worldwide.
`
`5.
`
`Mark Zuckerberg is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Facebook,
`
`Inc., owning a controlling interest in the company's stock. He resides in Palo Alto,
`
`California.
`
`Facebook's Profitable Control of A Quintessential Public Forum
`
`6.
`
`As the United States Supreme Court noted in Packingham v. North
`
`Carolina, 137 U.S. 1735, 1735-36-(2017}, Facebook is part of the "vast democratic forum
`
`of the Internet." Packingham extended the concept of a quintessential public forum from
`
`parks and physical spaces to cyberspace.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Facebook has a worldwide base of more than 2.3 billion users.
`
`More than 7 in 10 Americans have accounts on Facebook. They are not
`
`charged for their accounts.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 4 of 19
`
`9.
`
`Facebook occupies a dominant, quasi-monopolistic position in the global
`
`public forum of the Internet, and is one of four American companies dominating Internet
`
`traffic together with Google, Apple, and Amazon.
`
`10. Many billions of messages are sent between and among Facebook users
`,
`each day, taking various forms such as instant messages, timeline posts, and visual
`
`stories. Facebook surreptitiously harvest so-called meta-data from each message,
`
`building an enormous, and valuable, databank about each user. These databanks are
`
`combined, and, with the benefit of massive computing power, Facebook builds predictive
`
`models about how Facebook users will respond to various stimuli. Facebook markets this
`
`data to third-parties for a profit.
`
`11.
`
`Facebook reported gross revenue of $55.8 billion in 2018.
`
`Facebook Faces Questions About Use of Its Data In The 2016 Presidential
`Election
`
`12. During the course of the 2016 presidential election, Facebook sold data
`
`surreptitiously gathered from users to an entity known as Cambridge Analytica. Upon
`
`information and belief, that data was then used by Russian intelligence operatives to
`
`attempt to influence American voters.
`
`13. When Facebook's role in gathering and supplying this secretly obtained
`
`data became known to the public at large, Facebook faced enormous public pressure to
`
`take greater steps to assure privacy and to take a more socially responsible approach to
`
`managing content published on its platform and in using the data it harvests.
`
`Facebook Attem pts To Placate Critics By Censoring Speech
`
`14.
`
`To assuage an angry public and ultimately to protect its own financial
`
`interests, Facebook announced plans to create and enforce so-called "community
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 5 of 19
`
`standards" for content published on its site. These standards are directed toward speech
`
`that Facebook regards as inimical to a "safe environment."
`
`15.
`
`Among the content that Facebook finds "objectionable" is bullying and
`
`harassment. Facebook does not provide a definition for what bullying or harassment is.
`
`However, it does provide a broad definition that may cover almost anything: "Bullying and
`
`harassment happen in many places and come in may different forms, from making threats
`
`to releasing personally identifiable information, to sending threatening messages, and
`
`making unwanted malicious contact."
`
`16.
`
`Facebook further elaborates this so-called standard as follows: "We
`
`distinguish between public and private individuals because we want to allow discussion,
`
`which often includes critical commentary of people who are featured in the news or who
`
`have a large public audience. For public figures, we remove attacks that are severe as
`
`well as certain attacks where the public figure is directly tagged in the post of comment."
`
`17.
`
`The standard is hopelessly vague. As Facebook itself notes, "[c]ontext and
`
`intent matter, and we allow people to share and reshare posts if its clear that something
`
`was shared in order to condemn or draw attention to bullying and harassment."
`
`18.
`
`Facebook reserves the right to remove the "offensive" posts without
`
`notifying the user or giving the user an opportunity to clarify or edit his post. Moreover,
`
`Facebook reserves the right either temporarily or permanently to disable an account for
`
`violation of its "community standards" policy.
`
`19.
`
`The process of removing user posts is totally opaque. The manner in which
`
`postings are flagged as community standards violations is unknown, and the extent to
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 6 of 19
`
`which computer algorithms or humans decide which content is objectionable remains
`
`unknown.
`
`Facebook Censors Cameron L. Atkinson
`
`20.
`
`Like many of his fellow citizens and students of the law, the Plaintiff,
`
`Cameron L. Atkinson is a thinker who, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, loves
`
`to share his thoughts and hear the thoughts of others. He regularly posts on Facebook
`
`about political and legal developments with the same civility that he would use in the
`
`courtroom or the classroom, seeking to engage in debate with the community of fellow
`
`law students and other friends whose respect he has gained.
`
`21.
`
`The Plaintiff, Cameron L. Atkinson, is also an inquiring man who rarely
`
`rushes to judgment, often choosing to find out for himself before condemning someone.
`
`22. Consequently, when Cameron L. Atkinson learned from friends that
`
`Facebook was censoring conservatives' posts that mentioned the name of Eric
`
`Ciaramella, the alleged Ukranian whistleblower who has provided the impetus for the
`
`pending impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, he decided to test
`
`the scope of Facebook's censorship himself.
`
`23. Cameron L. Atkinson's first post occurred on the morning of November 11,
`
`2019. He published a post on Facebook that read "Test post: Eric Ciaramella is a hero
`
`for blowing the whistle on the Trump administration's treason with Ukraine." See Exhibit
`
`1.
`
`24.
`
`Approximately four minutes later, Cameron L. Atkinson published a second
`
`test post on Facebook that read "Test post 2: Eric Ciaramella is a dirty lying rat for trying
`
`to take down the Trump administration." See Exhibit 1.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 7 of 19
`
`25. Cameron L. Atkinson's object in publishing these posts was to see if
`
`Facebook would censor one post, but not the other.
`
`26. Within 5 hours, Facebook removed both of Cameron L. Atkinson's posts
`
`with no warning or notification.
`
`27.
`
`After learning of Facebook's censorship, Cameron L. Atkinson published a
`
`third post that read as follows:
`
`I have conflicting thoughts about the naming of Eric Ciaramella, the alleged
`Ukraine whistleblower. Tattling in the dark shadows destroys public
`confidence in a matter of serious public interest. On the other hand, the
`vitriolic nature of our society may very well raise concerns for his safety.
`However, it may also end up protecting his well-being. Regardless, I think
`that people should be open to debating the merits of this serious public
`question.
`
`See Exhibit 2.
`
`28.
`
`Again, less than 5 hours later, Facebook removed Cameron L. Atkinson's
`
`third post without notifying him or warning him.
`
`29.
`
`As of the filing of this complaint, Cameron L. Atkinson has not received a
`
`single communication from Facebook as to why his posts have been removed.
`
`30.
`
`Facebook's censorship of Cameron L. Atkinson embodies its categorical
`
`attempt to pander to and placate its critics. Facebook has elected to apply its vague
`
`"community standards" policies in a politically-motivated, ideologically-driven way,
`
`silencing both right-wing and left-wing speech that threatens to disrupt the carefully
`
`crafted narrative around the attempt to impeach President Donald Trump.
`
`31.
`
`The decision to censor Cameron L. Atkinson and the many other concerned
`
`citizens who sought to discuss Eric Ciaramella's crucial role in the profound matters of
`
`public concern happening in the present moment was undertaken in bad faith. Facebook
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 8 of 19
`
`is aware or should have been aware that Mollie Hemingway, a Fox News contributor, had
`
`already named Eric Ciaramella as the Ukrainian whistleblower in front of a national
`
`audience on Fox News.
`
`32.
`
`Put into perspective, Cameron L. Atkinson could only immediately reach
`
`664 users (his "friends" list as of this complaint) of Facebook's 2.3 billion users.
`
`33.
`
`Cameron L. Atkinson was not bullying or harassing Eric Ciaramella, but
`
`rather expressing his concerned views on the affairs of his government.
`
`34.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the
`
`Defendants, Cameron L. Atkinson has suffered ascertainable loss in that he has been
`
`deprived access to express his views in a public forum.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, Mr. Zuckerberg harbors political ambitions
`
`beyond his role as principal of Facebook. His decision to categorically censor the speech
`
`of concerned citizens including that of Cameron L. Atkinson is intentional and is inspired
`
`by ill-will, malice, and a desire to deflect attention from himself and Facebook's practice
`
`of surreptitiously mining data for profit from consumers who believe they are receiving a
`
`free service devoted primarily to their welfare.
`
`Communications Decency Act
`
`36.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`37.
`
`Facebook is a provider of an "interactive computer service" within the
`
`meaning of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996,47 U.S.C. Section 230, et
`
`seq.
`
`38.
`
`The Communications Decency Act provides immunity from civil liability for
`
`materials published on interactive computer service sites. The provision of immunity was
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 9 of 19
`
`intended to avoid "content-based" chilling of freedom of speech in the "new and
`
`burgeoning Internet medium." Section 230 was enacted, in part, to preserve the robust
`
`nature of speech on the Internet. These principles were clearly articulated in Zeran v.
`
`America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998).
`
`39.
`
`Facebook enjoys immunity from suit under Section 230 of the CDA as a
`
`Congressionally mandated means of ensuring free and robust speech on the Internet.
`
`This privileged status necessarily entails a corresponding responsibility to achieve the
`
`very goal for which Congress granted the immunity: to wit, the preservation of free speech
`
`on a quintessential public forum.
`
`40.
`
`Facebook's enjoyment of immunity from civil liability for the material it
`
`transmits on
`
`the
`
`Internet transforms
`
`its editorial decision-making process
`
`into
`
`management of a constructive public trust.
`
`41 .
`
`The activities of this constructive public trust require that Facebook operate
`
`and manage its content-based decisions in accord with the purposes of the trust.
`
`42.
`
`The manner and means by which the defendants have banned the Plaintiff
`
`from engaging in free speech on Facebook are a violation of the CDA and constitute a
`
`willful and wanton violation of the terms of the constructive public trust.
`
`43.
`
`The defendants use and enjoyment of the immunity conferred by the COA
`
`while simultaneously flouting the very purposes for which Congress conferred immunity
`
`is unconscionable and is akin to their secret harvesting of user date for sale at a profit to
`
`third parties.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 10 of 19
`
`First Amendment
`
`44.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference herein. This claim
`
`arises under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
`
`45.
`
`Facebook's dominant position in control of access to the Internet gives it a
`
`quasi-monopolistic power over a quintessential public forum.
`
`46.
`
`Facebook actively seeks to expand the reach of this quasi-monopolistic
`
`power and hires teams of social psychologists to study how users interact with site,
`
`constructing complex algorithms and engaging in sophisticated behavioral modeling so
`
`as to maximize the amount of time each user spends on the site.
`
`47.
`
`By increasing the amount of time users spend on the site, Facebook
`
`acquires more data, and is better able to predict how users will behave in response to
`
`stimuli. This data and the associated predictive models are at the core of the Facebook's
`
`business plan and are the primary product Facebook sells to advertisers.
`
`48.
`
`The CDA's grant of immunity is integral to the government's purpose of
`
`promoting freedom of speech on the Internet. As such, the symbiosis between Facebook
`
`and the United States government transforms Facebook's action into state action under
`
`the doctrine enunciated in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).
`
`49.
`
`Facebook's symbiotic relationship with the government is further illustrated
`
`by Facebook's policy of complying with subpoenas from law-enforcement agencies, but
`
`not with subpoenas from private attorneys, even in criminal cases.
`
`50.
`
`The defendants' decision to ban the Plaintiff from Facebook is an
`
`impermissible content-based abridgement of the plaintiffs' right to freedom of speech
`
`under the First Amendment.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 11 of 19
`
`51.
`
`Facebook's so-called "community standards" policy is overbroad and void
`
`for vagueness on its face.
`
`52.
`
`Facebook's application of the "community standards" policy in this case is
`
`overly broad.
`
`Fraud
`
`53.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`54.
`
`The Defendants hold themselves out to the world as fostering a means by
`
`which the people of the world can communicate with one another.
`
`55.
`
`The Defendants further represent that they will foster communication
`
`without censorship of participants based on the content of the participants' ideas and
`
`opinions.
`
`56.
`
`The Defendants offer the service of interconnection free of charge to
`
`participants, but secretly harvest data about each participant, including the sites
`
`participants visit, how long participants visit each site, and other highly personal
`
`information about the participants.
`
`57.
`
`The Defendants analyze and then package the data collected from
`
`participants to third parties at enormous profit, without obtaining the informed consent of
`
`the participants in any meaningful manner.
`
`58.
`
`The Defendants rely upon a vague "community standards" policy as a thinly
`
`veiled marketing device, eliminating content deemed unpopular by political parties,
`
`parties, and interest groups to which the Defendants intentionally or implicitly support.
`
`59. Upon information and belief, the lobbying of political interest groups, the
`
`pressure of politicians, and the intense public pressure of offended citizens is a sufficient
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 12 of 19
`
`reason for the Defendants to use their "community standards" policy to censor certain
`
`speech.
`
`60.
`
`The Defendants foster reliance on their service by participants so long as
`
`the benefits the Defendants receive from surreptitious data-mining is not outweighed by
`
`adverse reaction from the aforementioned actors.
`
`61.
`
`The defendants administer their "community standards" policy in a secretive
`
`and opaque manner.
`
`62.
`
`By holding themselves out to the world as promoters of free expression
`
`while simultaneously engaging in selective censorship of certain speech, the Defendants
`
`have engaged in fraud.
`
`63.
`
`The Defendants engaged in fraud to the detriment of the plaintiffs in the
`
`following ways:
`
`a. The Defendants encouraged and/or solicited the plaintiffs to use
`
`Facebook, which led the Plaintiff to build his primary intellectual
`
`friendships on Facebook instead of another platform such as Linkedln
`
`or Twitter;
`
`b. When the Defendants' unscrupulous business practices of data mining
`
`user data became the target of public ire, the Defendants sought to
`
`remedy their public reputations by categorically censoring speech that
`
`offended their critics;
`
`c. Without warning, Facebook censors the speech of millions of Americans
`
`including the Plaintiff, and decides to remove his posts;
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 13 of 19
`
`d. The Defendants never provided fair notice, an opportunity to be heard,
`
`or a review of any kind to the Plaintiff;
`
`e. The Defendants' actions were not motivated by any broader concern
`
`with public policy, but were instigated by a craven profiteering and
`
`marketing strategy which led it to align itself with groups and interests
`
`perceived to control a greater market share of the advertising revenue
`
`on which it relies.
`
`64.
`
`The Defendants' behavior and its fickle manipulation of its "community
`
`standards" policy amounts to little more than a bait and switch tactic to allure the Plaintiff
`
`to establish and contribute web traffic on its platform, then mined the data that traffic
`
`generated to sell for profit, and then censor the Plaintiff's speech when it does not fit the
`
`politically correct narrative that the Defendants must perpetuate.
`
`Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
`
`65.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 65 are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`66.
`
`The Defendants' act of holding themselves out to the world as fostering a
`
`means by which the people of the world can communicate with one another freely without
`
`censorship constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Connecticut Unfair
`
`Trade Practices Act.
`
`Implied Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`
`67.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 66 are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`68.
`
`Facebook and the Plaintiff entered into contracts about the terms and
`
`conditions under which the Plaintiff would use Facebook's social media services.
`
`69.
`
`The Plaintiff honored the terms and conditions of the contracts.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 14 of 19
`
`70.
`
`The Defendants have administered the contracts in an entirely self-serving
`
`manner, by changing the terms and conditions of the contracts without notice to the
`
`plaintiffs, and by otherwise behaving in an unconscionable manner for purposes of
`
`enormous financial gain.
`
`Damages
`
`71.
`
`Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg are contemptuous of public oversight of any
`
`kind, and regard substantial fines as a simple cost of doing business.
`
`72.
`
`In April 2019, Facebook set aside a sum of $5 billion to use to pay an
`
`anticipated fine by the Federal Trade Commission involving systemic breaches of
`
`consumer privacy. Even so, the Defendants forecast significant profits.
`
`73.
`
`The Defendants face investigations for breaches of privacy and other
`
`regulatory offenses in the European Union under GDPR laws.
`
`74.
`
`Punitive damages in a sum sufficient to make Facebook accountable are
`
`necessary.
`
`Wherefore, the Plaintiff seeks damages as follows:
`
`A. Punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish and deter Facebook for
`
`violating the First Amendment, the Communications Decency Act, for
`
`engaging in fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, and breaching
`
`the implied warranty of fair dealing. Because a sum of $5 billion appears
`
`to be insufficient to deter Facebook, the plaintiffs ask the jury for a sum
`
`significantly in excess of that amount;
`
`B. Attorneys' fees and the cost of this action arising under 42 U.S.C.
`
`Section 1988 and Connecticut law;
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 15 of 19
`
`C. Compensatory damages for violating the Plaintiffs First Amendment
`
`rights to free speech;
`
`JURY CLAIM
`
`The Plaintiff claims trial by jury.
`
`The Plaintiff
`
`, ~-
`
`N ~3120
`
`Pattis & Smith, LLC
`383 Orange Street, 15t FI.
`New Haven, CT 06511
`npattis@pattisandsmith.com
`Tel: 203-393-3017
`Fax: 203-393-9745
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 16 of 19
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`ell\" vlc::ll CU I lelia I:> G1 UII ly Iylll~ 1 Cll lUI II ylll~ lU lCU\.t:::
`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 17 of 19
`down the Trump administration.
`
`I,~";,
`
`-
`
`, _~ _-=-~"_" -
`
`",, __ " -
`
`, -
`
`_"
`
`-
`
`"-, _' -
`
`:
`
`Cameron Atkinson
`Just now · 0
`
`Test post 2:
`
`•••
`
`Eric 'CiarameUa is a dirty lying rat for tryin,g to take
`down the Trump administration.
`aJ Like
`
`~ Share
`
`Cameron Atkinson
`4 mins· 0
`
`Test post:
`
`•••
`
`Eric Ciara:meUa is a hero for blowing the whistle on the
`Trump admini'strationls treason with Ukraine.
`rb Like
`
`CJ Comment
`
`~ Share
`
`Cameron Atkinson
`Saturday at 11:38 PM 40
`
`•••
`
`~ .
`
`ViCiOUS .....
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 18 of 19
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-01785-VLB Document 1 Filed 11/12/19 Page 19 of 19
`, Photo
`Check In
`
`CD. Live
`
`Cameron Atkinson
`Just now· 0
`
`•••
`
`I ha:ve conflicting thoughts about the naming of Eric
`Ciaramella, theal~leged Ukra:ine whistleblower. Tattling
`in the dark shadows destroys public confidence in a
`matter of serious public interest. On the other hand,
`the vitriolic nature of our society may very well raise
`concerns for his safety. However, it ma;y also end up
`protecting his wen-being. Regardless, I think that
`people should be open to debating the merits of this
`serious public question.
`o Comment
`
`d> Share
`
`rIi Like
`
`