Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth
`President of the United States, ELIZABETH
`ALBERT, KIYAN AND BOBBY
`MICHAEL, AND JENNIFER HORTON,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
`THE CLASS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., and MARK
`ZUCKERBERG,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States,
`
`1.
`
`individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated Putative Class Members, by and through
`
`the undersigned counsel, brings this action against Defendant Facebook, Inc., (“Facebook”), and
`
`its Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Mark Zuckerberg, individually. The allegations herein of
`
`Plaintiff and Putative Class Members are based upon personal knowledge and belief as to their
`
`own acts, and upon the investigation of their counsel, and upon information and belief as to all
`
`other matters.
`
`2.
`
`As stated in its Community Standards, Defendant Facebook promotes itself as a
`
`service for people “to talk openly about the issues that matter to them, even if some may disagree
`
`or find them objectionable.” Defendant Facebook’s power and influence are immense. It
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`currently boasts close to three (3) billion registered Users worldwide and over 124 million Users
`
`in the United States. Defendant Facebook had $86.0 billion in total revenue, for a net profit
`
`margin of 33.9%, in fiscal year 2020.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Facebook has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship
`
`resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the
`
`Communications Act , 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal
`
`actors. Defendant Facebook’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state
`
`actor. As such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the
`
`censorship decisions it makes regarding its Users.
`
`4.
`
`Legislation passed twenty-five (25) years ago intended to protect minors from the
`
`transmission of obscene materials on the Internet, and to promote the growth and development of
`
`social media companies, has enabled Defendant Facebook to grow into a commercial giant that
`
`now censors (flags, removes, shadow bans, etc.) and otherwise restricts with impunity the
`
`constitutionally protected free speech of the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`5.
`
`The immediacy of Defendants’ threat to its Users, and potentially every citizen’s
`
`right to free speech, cannot be overstated. Defendants’ callous disregard of its Users’
`
`constitutional rights is no better exemplified than in the matter currently before the Court.
`
`6.
`
`On January 7, 2021, Defendants indefinitely banned the sitting President of the
`
`United States for exercising his constitutional right of free speech.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants extended their conditional and unconstitutional prior restraint of
`
`Plaintiff’s right to free speech as a private citizen until at least January of 2023.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants then served warnings to members of President Trump’s family, Team
`
`Trump, other Facebook Users, and Putative Class Members that its ban extends to anyone
`
`attempting to post Donald J. Trump’s “voice.” Censorship runs rampant against the Putative
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`Class Members, and the result is a chilling effect cast over our nation’s pressing political,
`
`medical, social, and cultural discussions.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff, a sitting President of the United States, was banned by the Defendants,
`
`as were Putative Class Members, using non-existent or broad, vague, and ever-shifting standards.
`
`While Facebook’s ban and prior restraint of Plaintiff are well-documented, the untold stories of
`
`Putative Class Members are now stirring the public conscience.
`
`10.
`
`Using unconstitutional authority delegated to them by Congress, Defendants have
`
`also mounted an aggressive campaign of censorship against a multitude of Putative Class
`
`Members through censorship (flagging, shadow banning, etc.) resulting from legislative
`
`coercion.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants deplatformed Plaintiff at the behest of, with cooperation from, and the
`
`approval of, Democrat lawmakers.
`
`12.
`
`Akin to forcing a round peg into a square hole, Facebook declared that specific
`
`posts of Plaintiff had violated Facebook’s self-imposed “Community Standards.” Countless
`
`other Facebook Users have not been as fortunate, with Facebook taking detrimental action
`
`against their accounts with no explanation whatsoever.
`
`13.
`
`If Defendants’ reliance on an unconstitutional delegation of authority to regulate
`
`free speech and under pressure from Congress, can effectively censor, and impose a prior
`
`restraint on the protected political speech of a sitting President of the United States, then the
`
`threat to Putative Class Members, our citizens, and our United States Constitution and form of
`
`government, is imminent, severe, and irreparable.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to declare that Section 230 on its face is an
`
`unconstitutional delegation of authority, that the Defendants’ actions directed at the Plaintiff and
`
`the Putative Class Members are a prior restraint on their First Amendment right to free speech, to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`order the Defendants to restore the Facebook account of Plaintiff, as well as those deplatformed
`
`Putative Class Members, and to prohibit Defendants from exercising censorship, editorial control
`
`or prior restraint in its many forms over the posts of President Trump, and Putative Class
`
`Members.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332,
`
`15.
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and the Constitution of the United States for the unconstitutional
`
`violation of the First Amendment right to free speech as pleaded below.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`17.
`
`Jurisdiction is also proper in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”), because: (i) the proposed class consists of well over 1,000,000
`
`Members; (ii) the Members of the proposed Class, including the Plaintiff, are citizens of states
`
`different from Defendant’s home states; and (iii) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`18. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (d), and (e)(1). A
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this District, and Plaintiff
`
`brings this suit for actions taken by Defendants that occurred while Plaintiff was serving in his
`
`capacity as President of the United States, and the Defendants’ prior restraint of Plaintiff’s
`
`speech continues to this day.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`19.
`
`Donald J. Trump (“Plaintiff”), the 45th President of the United States, is a private
`
`citizen and is domiciled in Palm Beach, Florida.
`
`20.
`
`Elizabeth Albert (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, domiciled in the state of
`
`Florida.
`
`21.
`
`Kiyan and Bobby Michael (“Plaintiffs”), United States citizens, domiciled in the
`
`state of Florida.
`
`22.
`
`Jennifer Horton (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, domiciled in the state of
`
`Michigan.
`
`Class
`
`23.
`
`All Facebook platform Users (“Putative Class Members”) who have resided in the
`
`United States between June 1, 2018, and today, and had their Facebook account censored by
`
`Defendants and were damaged thereby.
`
`Defendants
`
`24.
`
`Defendant Facebook is a foreign corporation with a principal place of business at
`
`1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California, and conducts business in the State of Florida,
`
`throughout the United States, and internationally. Facebook has forty-one (41) offices in the
`
`United States and forty-five (45) offices located worldwide. Facebook has been registered in
`
`Florida as a foreign profit corporation since 2011.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant Mark Zuckerberg (“Zuckerberg”), is the Chairman and Chief
`
`Executive Officer of Facebook, Inc. Zuckerberg owns a controlling interest in Facebook’s stock,
`
`and upon information and belief, resides in Palo Alto, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 6 of 44
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`DEFENDANTS FACEBOOK AND ZUCKERBERG
`
`A. Defendant Facebook
`
`26.
`
`The United States Supreme Court has recognized that social media platforms such
`
`as Facebook provide “perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to
`
`make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730. These platforms
`
`have been revolution[ary],” not least because they have transformed civic engagement by
`
`allowing elected officials to communicate instantaneously and directly with their constituents. Id.
`
`Facebook enables ordinary citizens to speak directly to public officials and listen to and debate
`
`others about public issues, in much the same way they could if gathered on a sidewalk or in a
`
`public park or city council meeting or town hall.
`
`27.
`
`In 2007, Facebook launched the Facebook platform, which allowed for the
`
`integration of third-party applications, known as “Apps,” and for the website to be integrated into
`
`the larger world wide web through search-engine indexing.
`
`28.
`
`Facebook actively encourages Users to express their ideas and communicate via
`
`its platform in the forms of comments and “likes” on postings. While encouraging extensive
`
`User engagement, Facebook also collects massive amounts of its Users’ data to sell to
`
`advertisers.
`
`29.
`
`As a social media conglomerate, Facebook allows Users to publish personal pages
`
`with personal message postings, links to news articles, videos, photographs, and to publicly
`
`interact with other Users through speech. The speech posted on Facebook pages ranges from
`
`Users’ mundane musings on everyday life to the most important new topics of the day, including
`
`political speech.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 7 of 44
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In accordance with its Terms of Service (“TOS”), a Facebook “User” is an
`
`individual who is permitted to create an account on its platform in accordance with its TOS. A
`
`User can post on their “wall,” a type of message board, a variety of speech, including their own
`
`commentary, videos, photographs, and links to news articles. Other Users can view, share and
`
`comment on the content on the User’s wall. Users rate other Users’ content and speech by
`
`giving it “likes.” Users also can send messages directly to each other and are updated by
`
`postings within their network of friends. By communicating with each other, Users create
`
`valuable communications that may become newsworthy.
`
`31.
`
`Facebook created a Newsfeed for its Users to offer selective postings, news
`
`articles, and targeted advertisements that it determines a User may like, depending n the personal
`
`information and history of that User. Facebook determines which posts and advertisements
`
`appear on a User’s Newsfeed by using an algorithm, which creates a ranking system that predicts
`
`which posts will be most valuable and meaningful to an individual.
`
`32.
`
`Facebook engages in targeted censorship decisions by using both algorithms and
`
`employees (referred to as “content moderators”) utilizing an internal tool developed by Facebook
`
`called TASKS.
`
`33.
`
`Facebook’s content moderators use TASKS to entertain censorship suggestions
`
`from employees. Facebook content moderators then often consult with their peers at other
`
`similarly situated social media platforms in deciding who, or what, to censor.
`
`34.
`
`Facebook and Twitter Inc. employees often coordinate their censorship efforts,
`
`which are authorized and immunized by Section 230. A recent review of domain names on
`
`Facebook’s TASKS platform referred to Twitter domain names, as well as particular phrases,
`
`words, or individuals both Facebook and Twitter were considering censoring, or ultimately did
`
`censor.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`35. Within two (2) minutes of one another, Facebook and Twitter suspended
`
`President Trump on January 7, 2021. Such simultaneous censorship and its origins are suspicious
`
`and worthy of the Court’s consideration when evaluating the conduct of the Defendants.
`
`36.
`
`Facebook also has developed a powerful tracking platform, CENTRA, that allows
`
`Facebook to monitor its Users’ speech and activity, not only on each individual User’s Facebook
`
`page, but also that Users’ speech and activity on any other social media platform across the
`
`entire Internet—and across all of that User’s Internet-connected devices as well.
`
`37.
`
`By utilizing its CENTRA tracking platform, Facebook has the ability not only to
`
`censor (i.e., flag, shadow ban, etc.) or otherwise constrain its own Facebook Users’
`
`constitutionally protected speech, but also potentially to censor Facebook Users on other social
`
`media platforms.
`
`38.
`
`Facebook’s TOS contains what it refers to as its “Community Standards” and
`
`states: “These guidelines outline our standards regarding the content you post to Facebook and
`
`your other Facebook products.”
`
`39.
`
`Facebook’s Community Standards guidelines regarding hate speech, incitement,
`
`or praise of violence are vague, broad, ill-defined, or not defined at all.
`
`40.
`
`Facebook’s Community Standards Guidelines on Hate Speech read as follows:
`
`“We define hate speech as a direct attack against people — rather than concepts or
`institutions— on the basis of what we call protected characteristics: race, ethnicity,
`national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender
`identity and serious disease. We define attacks as violent or dehumanizing speech,
`harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt, disgust or
`dismissal, cursing and calls for exclusion or segregation. We also prohibit the use of
`harmful stereotypes, which we define as dehumanizing comparisons that have historically
`been used to attack, intimidate, or exclude specific groups, and that are often linked with
`offline violence.”
`
`41. Facebook’s Community Standards Guidelines on Incitement of Violence read as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`“We aim to prevent potential offline harm that may be related to content on Facebook.
`While we understand that people commonly express disdain or disagreement by
`threatening or calling for violence in non-serious ways, we remove language that incites
`or facilitates serious violence. We remove content, disable accounts and work with law
`enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to
`public safety. We also try to consider the language and context in order to distinguish
`casual statements from content that constitutes a credible threat to public or personal
`safety.”
`
`42. Facebook’s Community Standards Guidelines on Praising Violence read as
`
`follows:
`
`“In addition, we do not allow content that praises, substantively supports, or represents
`events that Facebook designates as violating violent events - including terrorist attacks,
`hate events, mass murders or attempted mass murders, multiple murders, or hate crimes.”
`
`43.
`
`Additionally, Facebook directs Users to another website,
`
`www.oversightboard.com, where Facebook states that an independent review board reviews
`
`content removal and account suspension decisions selectively referred to it by Facebook. When
`
`Facebook referred its indefinite suspension of President Trump to its Oversight Board on January
`
`21, 2021, the Oversight Board had never reviewed the banning by Facebook of a User in the
`
`United States.
`
`44.
`
`Facebook’s own Oversight Board concluded that the January 21 indefinite
`
`deplatforming of President Trump lacked any basis in its existing, consistently applied
`
`community standards. See Facebook Oversight Board, Case decision 2021-001-FB-FBR.
`
`B. Defendant Mark Zuckerberg
`
`45.
`
`Defendant Mark Zuckerberg is a co-founder of Facebook, and at all times relevant
`
`hereto has served as Facebook’s Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and controlling shareholder.
`
`Upon information and belief, He resides in the Northern District of California and is a “person”
`
`who may be sued under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
`
`46.
`
`According to its 2018 Proxy Statement, Defendant Zuckerberg has the sole power
`
`to elect or remove any director from Facebook’s Board, as he controls a majority (53.3%) of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`Facebook’s total voting shares. Zuckerberg directs and controls Facebook’s business and is
`
`personally responsible for the damages caused by his individual and controlled entities’
`
`misconduct as set forth herein.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant Zuckerberg was personally involved in, and personally responsible for
`
`the decision to deplatform President Trump. On the morning of January 7, 2021, Zuckerberg
`
`informed high-ranking Facebook officers of his decision that Plaintiff’s Facebook account
`
`should be suspended indefinitely.
`
`
`
`II. PLAINTIFF’S USE OF FACEBOOK’S PLATFORM
`
`A. The Donald J. Trump Facebook account
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff established his Facebook account in May of 2009 and used the account
`
`for several years to engage with his followers about politics, celebrities, golf, and his business
`
`interests, among other topics. After he announced his campaign for the presidential nomination
`
`of the Republican Party, Plaintiff used his Facebook account to speak directly to his followers
`
`and the public at large. By using social media, including Facebook, President Trump strategically
`
`circumvented what he saw as a mainstream media that was biased against him.
`
`49.
`
`After his inauguration as President in January of 2017, Plaintiff’s Facebook
`
`account became an instrument of his presidency. By virtue of the way he used his account,
`
`Plaintiff’s messages became an important source of news and information about the government,
`
`as did his followers’ comments associated with Plaintiff’s posts. Plaintiff’s account became a
`
`public forum for speech by, to, and about government policy.
`
`50. When Plaintiff utilized his Facebook account in his official capacity as President:
`
`(a) it became an important outlet for news organizations and the U.S. government; and (b) his
`
`Facebook account operated as a public forum, serving a public function.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 11 of 44
`
`
`
`51.
`
`The comments generated by Plaintiff’s Facebook posts also gave rise to important
`
`public discussion and debate about government policy. Typically, his posts would generate
`
`thousands of replies posted by other Users, some of which would generate hundreds or thousands
`
`of replies in turn. President Trump’s account was a digital town hall in which the President of the
`
`United States communicated news and information to the public directly. Members of the public
`
`used the reply function to respond directly to President Trump and his office and to exchange
`
`views with one another.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff used his Facebook account to interact on a myriad of subjects with the
`
`public at large. Supporters and critics alike were welcome on the President’s Facebook page. No
`
`one was excluded, regardless of their views.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff used Facebook, and other social media platforms, to communicate
`
`directly with the American people more than any other President had directly communicated
`
`with them in the past.
`
`54.
`
`Not only were Plaintiff’s Facebook posts accessible to his followers, but other
`
`members of the public could, and did, access his posts at any time on the Internet.
`
`55.
`
`The Putative Class Members used their Facebook accounts in a similar fashion,
`
`sharing information, opinions, photographs, videos, and news with their networks ranging from
`
`friends and family to larger public audiences.
`
`
`
`III. DEMOCRAT LEGISLATORS COERCED DEFENDANTS TO CENSOR THE
`PLAINTIFF AND PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS
`
`56.
`
`Democrat legislators in Congress feared Plaintiff’s skilled use of social media as a
`
`
`
`threat to their own re-election efforts. These legislators exerted overt coercion, using both words
`
`and actions, upon Defendants to have Defendants censor the views and content with which
`
`Members of Congress disagreed with, of both the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 12 of 44
`
`
`
`57.
`
`Not only did Democrat legislators openly voice their displeasure with Defendants
`
`for providing a platform to Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, but they also spoke publicly of
`
`the steps they would take against Defendants if Defendants continued to provide a platform for
`
`the expression of views and content contrary to the legislators’ own agendas.
`
`58.
`
`Legislators (and in one instance Michelle Obama, the former First Lady) made it
`
`increasingly clear that they wanted Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, and the views and
`
`content they espoused, to be banned from Defendants’ platform.
`
`59.
`
` With Defendants shielded from liability for engaging in censorship by Section
`
`230, the Democratic legislators then wielded that immunity, combined with threats to revoke that
`
`immunity or otherwise to regulate Defendants, to use Defendants as a tool to effect censorship
`
`and viewpoint discrimination against Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members that the Democrat
`
`legislators knew they could not accomplish on their own.
`
`60.
`
`Below are just some examples of Democrat legislators threatening new
`
`regulations, antitrust breakup, and removal of Section 230 immunity for Defendants and other
`
`social media platforms if Facebook did not censor views and content with which these Members
`
`of Congress disagreed, including the views and content of Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`Members:
`
` “But I do think that for the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of
`responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed.”
`(Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, April 12, 2019);
`
` “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately
`should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.” (Joe
`Biden/Interview in December of 2019 and published January 2020);
`
` “We can and should have a conversation about Section 230 – and the ways in which it
`has enabled platforms to turn a blind eye as their platforms are used to . . . enable
`domestic terrorist groups to organize violence in plain sight.” (Statement of US Sen.
`Mark Warner on Section 230 Hearing on October 28, 2020.);
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 13 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “It’s long past time to hold the social media companies accountable for what’s
`published on their platforms.” (Bruce Reed, Biden’s Top Tech Advisor/December 2,
`2020);
`
` @jack (Jack Dorsey) Time to do something about this Tweet. (Sen. Kamala Harris’
`Tweet, October 2, 2019);
`
` 2020 Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris calls on Twitter to suspend President
`Trump’s account – ABC News (go.com) 10/2/2019;
`
`
`
`If the president goes on Facebook and encourages violence, that you will make sure
`your company’s algorithms don’t spread that content and you will immediately
`remove those messages? (Sen. Markey October 23, 2020 (Zuckerberg Senate
`Testimony));
`
` “Senator, yes. Incitement of violence is against our policy and there are not
`exceptions to that, including for politicians.” (Mark Zuckerberg response, (November
`17, 2020 Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, Senate Tech Hearing);
`
` “…Daily, the president shocks our conscience and shakes the very foundations of our
`democracy using a powerful megaphone, social media. The President has used this
`microphone to spread vicious falsehoods and an apparent attempt to overturn the will
`of voters… Now, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Dorsey, you have built terrifying tools of
`persuasion and manipulation with power far exceeding the robber barons of the last
`Gilded Age.” (Sen. Blumenthal (13:35) October 23, 2020: Tech CEO’s Senate
`Testimony)
`
`
`
`I have urged, in fact, a breakup of tech giants because they’ve misused their bigness
`and power. And indeed Section 230 reform, meaningful reform, including even
`possible repeal in large part because their immunity is way too broad and victims of
`their harms deserve a day in court. (Sen Blumenthal (14:48) October 23, 2020: Tech
`CEO’s Senate Testimony)
`
` “Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous
`behavior and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man
`(Trump) from their platforms. (Michelle Obama on Twitter, January 7, 2021)
`
` “The law (230) acts as a shield allowing them (Internet platforms) to turn a blind eye.
`The SAFE TECH ACT brings 230 into the modern age and makes platforms
`accountable for the harm they cause.” (Sen. Mazie Hirono’s Tweet, February 5,
`2021)
`
` Before the hearing the following statement was issued by the respective Democrat
`Chairmen. “This hearing will continue the Committee’s work of holding online
`platforms accountable for the growing rise of misinformation and disinformation.
`Industry self-regulation has failed. We must begin the work of changing incentives
`driving social media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 14 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disinformation.” (March 2021 Joint Hearing of the Communications and Technology
`Subcommittee)
`
` “There’s no Constitutional protection for using social media to incite an insurrection.
`Trump is willing to do anything for himself no matter the danger to our country. His
`big lies have cost America dearly. And until he stops, Facebook must ban him.
`Which is to say, forever.” (Rep. Adam Schiff’s Tweet, May 5, 2021)
`
`61.
`
`Democrat legislators not only voiced their threats (e.g., new regulations and
`
`removing Section 230 immunity) to social media platforms but also employed additional
`
`measures to deliver their unmistakable message that they were prepared to act against the social
`
`media platforms if Defendants did not increase their censorship of disfavored views and content
`
`of Plaintiff and Putative Class Members.
`
`62.
`
`These additional measures included convening public hearings, issuing
`
`subpoenas, dragging in the CEOs of the largest social media companies to testify publicly before
`
`Congress, and subjecting these CEOs to lengthy, embarrassing questioning.
`
`63.
`
`Some specific examples of when these coercive measures were extended on
`
`Defendants:
`
`On July 29, 2020, Four Big Tech CEOs testified before the House in an antitrust hearing.
`Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Alphabet
`and Google CEO Sundar Pichai attempted to defend their companies against accusations
`of anticompetitive practices. (Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the
`Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google | U.S. House of Representatives
`Judiciary Committee); and
`
`
`On October 23, 2019, Mark Zuckerberg Testimony Transcript: Zuckerberg Testifies on
`Facebook Cryptocurrency Libra and Is Confronted on Child Exploitation on Facebook.
`(Zuckerberg Testifies on Facebook Cryptocurrency Libra | October 23, 2019); and
`
`
`On November 17, 2020, Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the
`Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17, 2020. They were questioned on speech
`moderation policies. (Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election | Hearings |
`November 17, 2020); and
`
`
`On March 25, 2021, Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey, and Google's Sundar Pichai
`appeared virtually before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (House Hearing
`on Combating Online Misinformation and Disinformation | March 25, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`64. With this coercion directed at Defendants by repeatedly requiring their
`
`appearance at hearings, and reinforcing their potential to impose regulations, and strip them of
`
`230 immunity, Democrat legislators intended to force Defendants into permanently banning
`
`Plaintiff’s access to his Facebook account, his followers, and the public at large. The ancillary
`
`benefit was to deny the public access to Plaintiff’s content and views.
`
`65.
`
`The message conveyed by Democrat legislators to Defendants was clear: use the
`
`authority of Section 230 to ban Plaintiff and those Putative Class Members who posted content
`
`and views contrary to these legislators preferred points of view or lose the competitive
`
`protections of Section 230 and tens of billions of dollars of market share altogether.
`
`66.
`
`The legislators who pressured Defendants to censor Plaintiff and Putative Class
`
`Members who supported his views employed social media themselves extensively to
`
`communicate with their own constituents, promote their accomplishments in office, and
`
`fundraise and campaign.
`
`67. With Plaintiff removed from Facebook, it is considerably more difficult for
`
`Plaintiff to act as head of the Republican Party, campaign for Republican candidates, fundraise,
`
`and lay the groundwork for his own potential campaign run for the 2024 Republican Party
`
`nomination for President of the United States.
`
`68.
`
`Likewise, with Plaintiff now removed from Facebook and other social media
`
`platforms, it has ended balanced, direct public discussions between competing political views on
`
`national and local issues.
`
`69.
`
`By banning Plaintiff, Defendants made it more difficult for Plaintiff to
`
`communicate directly with the American public. Our national discourse is becoming
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22440-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 16 of 44
`
`
`immeasurably more altered and one-sided on race, medicine, the election process, the economy,
`
`immigration, etc.
`
`IV. CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION SIGNIFICANTLY ENCOURAGED
`DEFENDANTS’ CENSORSHIP OF PLAINTIFF AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS
`MEMBERS
`
`70.
`
`Facebook is currently one of the largest, if not the largest, of the social media
`
`
`
`platforms. Its very existence and growth have been directly fueled by Congressional legislation.
`
`71.
`
`In 1996, Congress passed the Community Decency Act of 1996, which amended
`
`the Telecommunications Act of 1934 Section 230(c) intending to promote the growth and
`
`development of social media platforms and protect against the transmission of obscene materials
`
`over the Internet to children.
`
`72.
`
`It is this Congressional legislation, commonly referred to as simply Section 230,
`
`or the “Good Samaritan” provision, that Facebook relies on to censor constitutionally
`
`permissible free speech of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`73.
`
`Section 230(c) provides:
`
`(1). TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER
`No provider or User of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
`speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
`
`(2). CIVIL LIABILITY
`No provider or User of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account
`of—
`
`A. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
`availability of material that the provider or User considers to be
`obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
`otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
`constitutionally prote