Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President
`of the United States, LINDA CUADROS AND
`AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
`THE CLASS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC., and JACK DORSEY,
`
`
`
`
`
` 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 Twitter, Inc., (“Twitter”) and its Chief
`
`Executive Officer, Jack Dorsey, individually. The allegations herein of Plaintiff and Putative
`
`Class Members are based upon personal knowledge and belief as to their own acts, upon the
`
`investigation of their counsel, and upon information and belief as to all other matters.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Twitter is a social media platform with more than three hundred fifty
`
`(350) million active Users worldwide, including approximately seventy (70) million daily active
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`Users in the United States. Since 2018, approximately 500 million tweets are sent out, or
`
`“tweeted,” each day. Twitter reported $3.72 billion in annual profit in 2020.
`
`3.
`
`Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from
`
`threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications
`
`Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors.
`
`Defendant Twitter’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor,
`
`and as such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the
`
`censorship decisions it makes.
`
`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 Twitter to grow into a commercial giant that
`
`now censors (flags, shadow bans, etc.) and otherwise restricts with impunity the constitutionally
`
`protected free speech of the Plaintiff and 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 permanently banned the sitting President of the
`
`United States from their platform for exercising his constitutional right of free speech.
`
`7.
`
`Twitter’s censorship runs rampant against the entire Class, and the result is a
`
`chilling effect on our Nation’s pressing political, medical, social, and cultural discussions.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff, a sitting President of the United States, was deplatformed by the
`
`Defendants, as were Putative Class Members, using non-existent, broad, vague, and ever-shifting
`
`standards. While Twitter’s deplatforming and prior restraint of the Plaintiff are well-documented,
`
`the untold stories of Putative Class Members are now stirring the public conscience.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Using the unconstitutional authority delegated to them by Congress, Defendants
`
`have mounted an aggressive campaign of prior restraint against a multitude of Putative Class
`
`Members through censorship (flagging, shadow banning, etc.) resulting from legislative coercion
`
`and collusion with federal actors.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants deplatformed Plaintiff at the behest of, with cooperation from, and
`
`with the approval of, Democrat lawmakers.
`
`11.
`
`Akin to forcing a round peg into a square hole, Twitter declared that specific
`
`Twitter posts of Plaintiff had violated its self-composed “Twitter Rules.” Countless other Twitter
`
`Users have not been as fortunate, with Twitter taking detrimental action against their accounts
`
`with no explanation whatsoever.
`
`12.
`
`If Defendants’ use of an unconstitutional delegation of authority to regulate free
`
`speech 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.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to declare that Section 230 on its face is an
`
`unconstitutional delegation of authority and that the Defendants’ actions directed at Plaintiff and
`
`Putative Class Members are a prior restraint on their First Amendment right to free speech, to
`
`order the Defendants to restore the Twitter 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332,
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`16.
`
`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 parties are minimally diverse, as Members of the proposed class, including
`
`Plaintiff, are citizens of states different from defendants’ home states; and (iii) the aggregate
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`17. 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 Defendants’ prior restraint of Plaintiff’s speech
`
`continues to this day.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`18.
`
`Donald J. Trump (“Plaintiff”), the 45th President of the United States, is a private
`
`citizen and is domiciled in Palm Beach, Florida.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`Class
`
`19.
`
`All Twitter platform Users (“Putative Class Members”) who have resided in the
`
`United States between June 1, 2018, through today, who had their Twitter account censored by
`
`Defendants and were damaged thereby.
`
`20.
`
`Linda Cuadros (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, domiciled in the state of
`
`Florida.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff American Conservative Union (“Plaintiff”), is a social welfare
`
`organization in the United States, established in 1964 in the District of Columbia.
`
`Defendants
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter), is a foreign corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California, and conducts
`
`business in the state of Florida. Throughout the United States and internationally, Twitter has
`
`eleven (11) offices in the United States and twenty-one (21) offices located worldwide.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant Jack Dorsey (“Dorsey”) is the co-founder and CEO of Twitter.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`DEFENDANTS TWITTER AND DORSEY
`
`A. Defendant Twitter
`
`24.
`
`The United States Supreme Court has recognized that social media platforms such
`
`as Twitter 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 (2017). 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.
`
`Twitter enables ordinary citizens to speak directly to public officials and listen to and debate
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`On March 21, 2006, Jack Dorsey, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams launched
`
`Twitter. By July 15, 2006, Twitter’s microblogging service was officially available to the public.
`
`Twitter is a social networking service that allows its Users to post and interact with each other
`
`through short messages known as “tweets.”
`
`26.
`
`Since the birth of Twitter, the platform has grown immensely. In November 2008,
`
`one (1) billion tweets were generated. In October 2009, five (5) billion tweets were generated. In
`
`March 2011, one (1) billion tweets were generated every week. As of January 25, 2021, Twitter
`
`reached a User base of one hundred and ninety-two (192) million Users who post over five
`
`hundred (500) million tweets every day.
`
`27.
`
`In Biden v. Knight 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021), the Supreme Court discussed the
`
`Second Circuit’s decision in Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, No. 18-
`
`1691, holding that Plaintiff’s threads on Twitter from his personal account were, in fact, official
`
`presidential statements made in a “public forum.”
`
`28.
`
`Likewise, President Trump would discuss government activity on Twitter in his
`
`official capacity as President of the United States with any User who chose to follow him, except
`
`for seven (7) Plaintiffs in the Knight case, supra., and with the public at large.
`
`29.
`
`Twitter is a social networking service that allows its Users to post and interact
`
`with each other through short messages known as “tweets.”
`
`30.
`
`Speech posted on Twitter ranges from observations on everyday life to the most
`
`important news events of the day, including political speech. Users’ tweets are freely available
`
`to anyone connected with the Internet.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`31.
`
`A Twitter “User” is an individual who has created an account on the Twitter
`
`platform. A User can post “tweets,” up to 280 characters in length, to a webpage on Twitter that
`
`is attached to the User’s account.
`
`32.
`
`A “tweet” comprises the tweeted content (i.e., the message, including any
`
`embedded photograph, video, or link), the User’s account name (with a link to the User’s Twitter
`
`webpage), the User’s profile picture, the date and time the tweet was generated, and the number
`
`of times the tweet has been replied to, retweeted by, or liked by other Users.
`
`33.
`
`Twitter webpages and their associated timelines are visible to everyone with
`
`Internet access, including those who are not Twitter Users. Twitter Users can subscribe to other
`
`Users’ messages by “following” those Users’ accounts. Beyond publishing tweets to their
`
`followers, Twitter Users can engage with one another in a variety of ways. For example, they
`
`can “retweet”—i.e., republish—the tweets of other Users, either by publishing them directly to
`
`their own followers or by “quoting” them in their own tweets. The reply will also appear on the
`
`original User’s feed in a “comment thread” under the tweet that prompted the reply. Other
`
`Users’ replies to the same tweet will appear in the same comment thread.
`
`34.
`
`Twitter’s platform has been the catalyst for social movements across the globe,
`
`allowing Users to connect and collectively organize. In the world of American politics, Twitter is
`
`used by elected officials to make policy announcements, for those with political aspirations to
`
`announce they are running for office, and by political supporters to express their support or
`
`disapproval of politicians and major political figures, including President Trump.
`
`35.
`
`Today, Twitter is a social media platform with more than 350 million active Users
`
`worldwide, including some 70 million in the United States.
`
`36.
`
` Twitter’s Terms of Service (“TOS”) is comprised of its Privacy Policy, the
`
`Twitter Rules and Policies, and all other incorporated policies of Twitter. The Twitter TOS,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`User Agreement, and Privacy Policies span seventy-six (76) pages. In addition, Twitter’s Rules
`
`and Policies contains sixty-five (65) hyperlinks to topics incorporated into the User
`
`Agreement. Understanding the confusing TOS requires a continuous cross-reference to other
`
`sections and previously defined terms. Twitter further reserves the right to change its TOS from
`
`time to time and states that it “will try to notify” Users of any changes in its TOS. By using
`
`Twitter after it has changed its TOS, even without notification, a User is bound by those terms.
`
`37.
`
`Twitter has in its TOS what it refers to as its “Twitter Rules,” which Twitter
`
`claims outline its standards regarding the content you can post to Twitter and other Twitter
`
`products.”
`
`38.
`
`The “Twitter Rules” guidelines regarding hate speech, incitement, or praise of
`
`violence are vague, broad, ill-defined, or not defined at all.
`
`39.
`
`“The Rules” on Twitter state:
`
`Violence: “You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We
`also prohibit the glorification of violence.”
`
`Violent Threats: “We prohibit content that makes violent threats against an identifiable
`target. Violent threats are declarative statements of intent to inflict injuries that would
`result in serious and lasting bodily harm.”
`
`Incitement against protected categories: “We prohibit inciting behavior that targets
`individuals or groups of people belonging to protected categories.”
`
`B. Defendant Jack Dorsey
`
`40.
`
`Defendant Jack Dorsey is a co-founder of Twitter, Inc., and at all times relevant
`
`hereto has served as Twitter’s Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and controlling shareholder.
`
`He resides in the Northern District of California and is a “person” who may be sued under 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1961(3).
`
`II. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S USE OF TWITTER’S PLATFORM
`
`A. The Donald J. Trump Twitter account (@realDonaldTrump)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff established his Twitter 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 Twitter account to speak directly to his followers and
`
`to the public at large. By using social media, including Twitter, Plaintiff strategically
`
`circumvented what he saw as a mainstream media that was biased against him.
`
`42.
`
`After his inauguration in January of 2017, Plaintiff’s Twitter account became an
`
`instrument of his presidency. Plaintiff’s tweets became an important source of news and
`
`information about the government, as did his followers’ tweets associated with Plaintiff’s posts.
`
`Plaintiff’s account became a public forum for speech by, to, and about government policy.
`
`43. When Plaintiff utilized his Twitter account in his official capacity as President: (a)
`
`it became an important outlet for news organizations and the U.S. government; and (b) his
`
`Twitter account operated as a public forum, serving a public forum, serving a public function.
`
`44.
`
`The comments generated by Plaintiff’s tweets also gave rise to important public
`
`discussion and debate about government policy. Typically, his posts from Plaintiff would
`
`generate thousands of replies posted by other Users, some of which would generate hundreds or
`
`thousands of replies in turn. Plaintiff’s account was a digital town hall in which Plaintiff
`
`communicated news and information to the public directly. Members of the public used the reply
`
`function to respond directly to Plaintiff and his office and would retweet to exchange views with
`
`one another.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff used his Twitter account and other social media platforms to
`
`communicate directly with the American people more than any other President in U.S. history.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff used his Twitter account to interact on a myriad of subjects with the
`
`public at large. Supporters and critics alike were welcome on the President’s Twitter page, with
`
`the exception of the seven (7) Plaintiffs in the Knight case.
`
`47.
`
`The Putative Class Members used their Twitter accounts in a similar fashion.
`
`They created their accounts to share information, opinions, pictures, 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
`
`48. 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, to direct Defendants to censor the views and content which Democrat Members of
`
`Congress disagreed with, of both Plaintiff and Putative Class Members.
`
`49. 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.
`
`50. Legislators (and in multiple instances, the current Vice President of the United
`
`States, Kamala Harris, and the former First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama) made it
`
`increasingly clear that they wanted President Trump, and the views he espoused, to be banned
`
`from Defendants’ platform.
`
`51.
`
` With Defendants shielded from liability for engaging in censorship by Section
`
`230, the Democrat legislators then wielded that immunity, combined with threats to revoke that
`
`immunity or to otherwise regulate Defendants, to use Defendants as a tool to effect censorship
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`and viewpoint discrimination against Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members that the Democrat
`
`legislators knew they could not accomplish on their own.
`
`52. 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 Twitter 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:
`
` “Look, let’s be honest, @realDonaldTrump’s Twitter account should be suspended.”
`(Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, September 30, 2019);
`
` “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 Dorsey 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.);
`
` “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 (Dorsey 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);
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 12 of 34
`
` “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);
`
` 
`
` “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 disinformation.”
`(March 2021 Joint Hearing of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee,
`statement issued by Democrat Chairman);
`
` “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, Twitter must ban him. Which
`is to say, forever.” (Rep. Adam Schiff’s Tweet, May 5, 2021).
`
`53. Democrat legislators not only voiced their threats (e.g., new regulations and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`removing Section 230 immunity) to social media platforms, but they 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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`54.
`
`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.
`
`55. 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, Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg,
`Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended 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, 2020, 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, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Dorsey testified before the
`Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17. They were questioned on speech
`moderation policies. (Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election | Hearings |
`November 17, 2020); and
`
`
`On March 25, 2021, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, 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); and
`
`56. 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 were intended to force Defendants into permanently banning
`
`Plaintiff’s access to his Twitter account, his followers, and the public at large. The ancillary
`
`benefit was to deny the public access to Plaintiff’s content and views.
`
`57. 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.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`58.
`
`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.
`
`59. With Plaintiff removed from Twitter, 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 for the 2024 Republican Party nomination for
`
`President of the United States.
`
`60.
`
`Likewise, with Plaintiff now removed from Twitter and other social media
`
`platforms, it has ended balanced, direct public discussions between competing political views on
`
`national and local issues.
`
`61.
`
`By banning Plaintiff, Defendants have made it more difficult to communicate
`
`directly with the American public. Our national discourse is becoming immeasurably more
`
`altered and one-sided on race, medicine, the election process, the economy, immigration, etc.
`
`IV. LEGISLATION SIGNIFICANTLY ENCOURAGED DEFENDANTS’
`CENSORSHIP OF PLAINTIFF AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS
`
`62. Twitter is currently one of the largest of the social media platforms. Its growth, and
`
`very existence, have been directly authorized by Congressional legislation.
`
`63.
`
`In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which
`
`amended the Telecommunications Act of 1934 with Section 230(c), intending to promote the
`
`growth and development of social media platforms, as well as to protect against the transmission
`
`of obscene materials over the Internet to children.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 15 of 34
`
`
`
`64.
`
`It is Congressional legislation commonly referred to as simply Section 230, or the
`
`“Good Samaritan” protection, that Twitter relied on to constrain otherwise constitutionally
`
`permissible free speech of Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`65. 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 protected; or
`B. any action taken to enable or make available to information content
`providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material
`described in paragraph (1).
`
`66. Section 230(c) has accomplished and exceeded its original purpose in terms of
`
`
`
`promoting the growth and development of social media platforms.
`
`67. According to Twitter’s latest released figures from the fourth quarter of 2020, the
`
`platform boasts one hundred ninety -two (192) million daily active Users. Fifty-five (55) million
`
`of Twitter's daily active Users are in the U.S. Since 2018, approximately 500 million tweets are
`
`sent out or “tweeted” each day. Twitter reported $3.72 Billion in annual profit in 2020.
`
`68. However, in terms of addressing the transmission of obscene materials over the
`
`Internet, Twitter has failed.
`
`69. Allegations that Twitter is allowing for the exploitation of children on its platform
`
`continue to mount. Twitter has been cited for knowingly violating several obscenity and sex
`
`trafficking laws. Twitter is not only promoting child exploitation in the United States, but is
`
`allegedly doing so globally.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 16 of 34
`
`
`
`70.
`
`As discussed in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Leary, Mary Graw,
`
`The Indecency and Injustice of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Vol. 41, No. 2,
`
`pg. 564, 565 (2018):
`
`Congress expressly stated that th[is] is the policy of the United States ‘to ensure vigorous
`enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,
`stalking, and harassment by means of computer.’ That said, Congress appeared to
`recognize that unlimited tort-based lawsuits would threaten the then-fragile Internet and
`the ‘freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.’
`Although these two goals required some balancing, it was clear from the text and
`legislative history of § 230 that it was never intended to provide a form of absolute
`immunity for any and all actions taken by interactive computer services. Section 230 is
`not ‘a general prohibition of civil liability for web-site operators and other content hosts.’
`Rather, Congress sought to provide limited protections for limited actions.
`
`71.
`
`In passing 230 (c), Congress permits, but does not mandate, action be taken by
`
`social media platforms.
`
` 
`
`
`Section 230(c) permits Twitter to take down or block speech deemed
`“objectionable… whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
`
` 
`
`
`Section 230(c) also pre-empts all conflicting state laws, preventing such censorship
`from being “made illegal… by any provisions of the laws of a State.”
`
`
`72.
`
`In relying on the permissive language of Section 230 and statements and actions
`
`of Democrat legislators, those legislators made it clear that they had a “strong preference” for the
`
`censoring of the views and content of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members regarding, for
`
`example:
`
`
`COVID-19 “misinformation,” including the lack of safety and efficacy of
`hydroxychloroquine and the use of