Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 1:21-cv-22441-SCOLA/GOODMAN
`
`________________________________________
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC., and JACK DORSEY,
`
`
`
`________________________________________
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S
` MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Twitter’s User Agreement ................................................................................. 1
`
`This Litigation .................................................................................................. 3
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`The Court Should Transfer This Case Before Taking Any Other Action On
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint .................................................................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Governed By A Valid Forum Selection Clause ............................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Entered Into A Valid Contract With Twitter ........................................ 7
`
`The User Agreement Contains A Mandatory Forum Selection Clause ................. 9
`
`The Claims Here Are Within The Forum Selection Clauses’s Broad Scope ......... 9
`
`III.
`
`The § 1404 Analysis Requires Transferring This Case To California............................ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Northern District Of California Is An Adequate Alternative Forum ............ 12
`
`The Public Interest Factors Do Not Justify Ignoring The Forum Selection
`Clause ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`America Online, Inc. v. Booker,
`781 So. 2d 423 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)................................................................... 13,
`
`Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Texas,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013) .............................................................................................. passim
`
`Beckerman v. Heiman,
`2006 WL 1663034 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2006) .............................................................. 14
`
`Birdwell v. Royal Caribbean Cruise, A/S,
`1985 WL 66 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 1985)........................................................................ 10
`
`Brengle v. ITF Ltd.,
`2018 WL 5279359 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2018) ................................................................ 7
`
`Brittain v. Twitter Inc.,
`2019 WL 110967 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2019)................................................................. 9, 11
`
`Brittain v. Twitter, Inc.,
`2019 WL 8137718 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019).......................................................... 6, 15
`
`Carmouche v. Tamborlee Management, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Dealtime.com v. McNulty,
`123 F. Supp. 2d 750 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).......................................................................... 14
`
`Dolin v. Facebook, Inc.,
`289 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (D. Haw. 2018) ......................................................................... 12
`
`Doshier v. Twitter, Inc.,
`417 F. Supp. 3d 1171 (E.D. Ark. 2019) ................................................................... 6, 15
`
`Emerald Grande, Inc. v. Junkin,
`334 F. App’x 973 (11th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.,
`841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).......................................................................... 11
`
`Global Satellite Communication Co. v. Starmill U.K. Ltd.,
`378 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Gordon v. Sandals Resorts International, Ltd.,
`418 F. Supp. 3d (S.D. Fla. 2019) ........................................................................... 12, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Horseshoe Entertainment,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 7
`
`Kolodziej v. Mason,
`774 F.3d 736 (11th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Krenkel v. Kerzner International Hotels Ltd.,
`579 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Loomer v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2020 WL 2926357 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020) ................................................................. 8
`
`L & H Construction Co. v. Circle Redmont, Inc.,
`55 So.3d 630 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011) ......................................................................... 9
`
`Manrique v. Fabbri,
`493 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1986).......................................................................................... 14
`
`McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin,
`429 F.2d 30 (3d Cir. 1970)............................................................................................ 7
`
`Mirasco, Inc. v. Ghaly,
`2017 WL 4890540 (N.D. Ga. May 30, 2017)............................................................... 14
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Moody,
`2021 WL 2690876 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-12355
`(July 31, 2021) ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A.,
`985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ......................................................................... 8
`
`Rucker v. Oasis Legal Finance, L.L.C.,
`632 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................... 5
`
`SAI Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Applied Systems, Inc.,
`858 So. 2d 401 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003).................................................................... 14
`
`Snapper, Inc. v. Redan,
`171 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`Stokes v. Markel American Insurance Company,
`2019 WL 8017457 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2019) ............................................................... 14
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Trans Am Worldwide, LLC v. JP Superior Solutions, LLC,
`2018 WL 3090394 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2018) .............................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp.,
`2012 WL 2375486 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012) ................................................................ 9
`
`VS Technologies, LLC v. Twitter, Inc.,
`2011 WL 11074291 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2011) ............................................................... 9
`
`Wingo v. Twitter, Inc.,
`2014 WL 7013826 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2014) ...................................................... 6, 15
`
`World Vacation Travel, S.A., de C.V. v. Brooker,
`799 So. 2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001).................................................................... 14
`
`Wynn v. Kisinger, Campo & Associates, Corp.,
`2005 WL 8154579 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2005) ................................................................ 10
`
`Zampa v. JUUL Labs, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1777730 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) .......................................................... 7, 14
`
`DOCKET
`
`Supplemental Brief, Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,
`141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) (No. 20-197), 2020 WL 4905204 ............................................... 8
`
`STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.031.................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 ............................... 4, 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`SB 7072, 2021 Leg. (Fla. 2021) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The claims asserted in this action are meritless and should be dismissed with prejudice as
`
`a matter of law. But before those fatal flaws can be addressed, the Court should correct another
`
`fundamental problem with this lawsuit: It is filed in the wrong court. The forum selection clause
`
`in Twitter’s User Agreement requires claims like those asserted here to be litigated in the state or
`
`federal courts in San Francisco, California. Plaintiffs acknowledge that they agreed to Twitter’s
`
`User Agreement as a condition of using the platform. And the Supreme Court has made clear that
`
`a “valid forum selection clause should be given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional
`
`cases.” Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 62-64
`
`(2013) (alteration omitted). Following that instruction, courts routinely enforce forum selection
`
`clauses just like the one that Plaintiffs agreed to here. This case is no different. The Court should
`
`therefore transfer this case to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Twitter’s User Agreement
`
`Twitter operates an Internet communications platform that allows hundreds of millions of
`
`people around the world to share views and follow current events. Am. Compl. ¶ 2. Twitter’s
`
`users communicate their views through posts—called “Tweets”—on Twitter’s platform. Twitter
`
`is headquartered in San Francisco, California. Id. ¶ 25.
`
`Plaintiffs are former or current Twitter account holders. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 119, 126, 131,
`
`139, 148, 157. To create a Twitter account, each Plaintiff was required to complete an online sign-
`
`up process during which they agreed to Twitter’s User Agreement, including the Terms of Service.
`
`See id. ¶ 76. Each was also required to acknowledge that, by continuing to use Twitter’s services,
`
`they agreed to be bound by the current version of the Terms of Service. See id. ¶¶ 37, 76; see also
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Carome Decl. Ex A at 9 (hereinafter “Terms of Service”) (“We may revise these Terms from time
`
`
`
`
`
`to time. . . . By continuing to access or use the Service after those revisions become effective, you
`
`agree to be bound by the revised Terms.”). Twitter’s current and former Terms of Service have
`
`been available at all times on its website.
`
`The Twitter User Agreement requires that disputes relating to the use of Twitter’s services
`
`must be resolved in federal or state court in San Francisco, California. In particular, the User
`
`Agreement states that “[a]ll disputes related to these Terms or Services will be brought solely in
`
`the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States,” and that the
`
`parties “consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient
`
`forum.” Terms of Service at 9.
`
`By assenting to the User Agreement, Plaintiffs also agreed to abide by Twitter’s Rules and
`
`Policies. See Terms of Service at 1 (“[T]he Twitter User Agreement comprises these Terms of
`
`Service, our Privacy Policy, the Twitter Rules and Policies, and all incorporated policies”). Twitter
`
`institutes and enforces the Twitter Rules “to ensure all people can participate in the public
`
`conversation freely and safely.” Declaration of Patrick J. Carome (“Carome Decl.”), Ex. B
`
`(hereinafter “Twitter Rules”). The Rules establish standards regarding what content users may
`
`post on the platform, including prohibitions on violence, hateful conduct, and abuse, among others.
`
`Am. Compl. ¶ 38. For example, the Rules prohibit posting violent threats or content that glorifies
`
`violence. Specifically, they state,
`
`Glorification of violence policy: You may not threaten violence against an
`individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of
`violence. . . . [W]e have a policy against content that glorifies acts of violence
`in a way that may inspire others to replicate those violent acts and cause real
`offline harm, or events where members of a protected group were the primary
`targets or victims. . . . Under this policy, you can’t glorify, celebrate, praise or
`condone violent crimes, violent events where people were targeted because of
`their membership in a protected group, or the perpetrators of such acts.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Carome Decl. Ex. C, at 2. The Twitter Rules also prohibit using the Twitter platform to spread
`
`
`
`
`
`misinformation regarding certain topics, including civic processes and COVID-19. With respect
`
`to COVID-19, the Twitter Rules state,
`
`You may not use Twitter’s services to share false or misleading information
`about COVID-19 which may lead to harm. . . . Content that is demonstrably
`false or misleading and may lead to significant risk of harm (such as increased
`exposure to the virus, or adverse effects on public health systems) may not be
`shared on Twitter. This includes sharing content that may mislead people about
`the nature of the COVID-19 virus; the efficacy and/or safety of preventative
`measures, treatments, or other precautions to mitigate or treat the disease;
`official regulations, restrictions, or exemptions pertaining to health advisories;
`or the prevalence of the virus or risk of infection or death associated with
`COVID-19. In addition, we may label Tweets which share misleading
`information about COVID-19 to reduce their spread and provide additional
`context.
`
`Carome Decl. Ex D, at 2.
`
`Twitter may enforce these policies by blocking or removing specific posts Tweets that it
`
`determines to be in violation of the Rules, by temporarily or permanently suspending an account,
`
`or by a combination of these steps. Carome Decl. Ex. E, at 3-4.
`
`B.
`
`This Litigation
`
`On July 7, 2021, Donald Trump, Linda Cuadros, and the American Conservative Union
`
`commenced this putative class action against Twitter and its Chief Executive Officer Jack Dorsey.1
`
`Dkt. 1. Despite the User Agreement’s express forum selection clause, they filed this action in this
`
`Court, rather than in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California.
`
`On July 27, 2021, without having served Twitter with their initial pleading, Plaintiffs filed
`
`an Amended Complaint, adding plaintiffs and claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that
`
`
`1 This motion is brought by Twitter, Inc. alone, and not by Mr. Dorsey. Twitter notes that this
`Court likely does not have personal jurisdiction over Mr. Dorsey, nor would this Court likely be
`the proper venue for any claims against him. Neither of those problems exists in the Northern
`District of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Twitter’s moderation and/or suspension of Plaintiffs’ accounts for violations of Twitter’s Rules on
`
`
`
`
`
`violence and COVID-19 misinformation violated their First Amendment rights. Am. Compl.
`
`¶¶ 113-167. It also alleges that certain government actors coerced Twitter into moderating
`
`Plaintiffs’ accounts by making it “increasingly clear that they wanted President Trump, and the
`
`views he espoused to be banned,” “threatening new regulations” against social media platforms
`
`like Twitter and expressing concerns about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation online. Id.
`
`¶¶ 51-64, 108. Plaintiffs also allege that Twitter “act[ed] in concert” with the government to
`
`“censor[] the specific speech at issue in this lawsuit and in de-platforming the Plaintiff” and to
`
`remove COVID-19 information with which the government disagreed. Id. ¶¶ 78-112, 173. On
`
`these bases, Plaintiffs contend that Twitter’s enforcement of its Rules in a manner that affected
`
`Plaintiffs’ accounts and content was—even though Twitter is privately owned—governmental
`
`action for which Twitter may be sued under the First Amendment.
`
`The Amended Complaint also includes a claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade
`
`Practices Act (FDUTPA) (Count III), and a claim under Florida S.B. 7072, 2021 Leg. (Fla. 2021)
`
`(“SB 7072”) (Count IV), a law enacted in May 2021 that seeks to regulate how online service
`
`providers moderate content posted by third parties. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 267-301. 2 In Count III,
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Twitter deceived consumers by publicly representing that Twitter applies
`
`“objective, uniform standards by which content may be censored,” while allegedly engaging in a
`
`“subjective pattern of discriminating against disfavored parties” in practice. Id. ¶¶ 203-204. For
`
`example, the Amended Complaint alleges that because consumers supposedly rely on Twitter’s
`
`
`2 A court in the Northern District of Florida has preliminarily enjoined government officials from
`enforcing major parts of SB7072 on the ground that they are preempted by federal law and violate
`the First Amendment. See NetChoice, LLC v. Moody, 2021 WL 2690876 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2021)
`(Hinkle, J.), appeal docketed, No. 21-12355 (11th Cir. July 31, 2021).
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`
`“good faith application of their standards,” a reasonable consumer would assume that Twitter
`
`
`
`
`
`moderated Plaintiffs’ posts claiming “that COVID-19 . . . originated from a laboratory” because
`
`they were false, when Twitter instead allegedly “suppressed” those statements because they
`
`conflict with the views of certain government actors. Id. ¶¶ 200-220. In Count IV, Plaintiffs allege
`
`that Twitter engaged in an “inconsistent application of [its] standards” by removing Plaintiffs’
`
`Tweets but not consistently removing other Tweets that violate the Twitter Rules. Id. ¶¶ 221-233.
`
` On August 31, 2021, nearly two months after filing their original complaint and over a
`
`month after filing their amended complaint, Plaintiffs contacted Twitter for the first time relating
`
`to this lawsuit, delivering a copy of a summons, the original complaint, and an amended complaint
`
`to Twitter’s registered agent in Florida. Plaintiffs also delivered to Twitter’s registered agent in
`
`Florida a copy of a summons purportedly addressed to Mr. Dorsey, care of Twitter’s registered
`
`agent, which is clearly not effective service on Mr. Dorsey. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e); Fla. Stat.
`
`§ 48.031.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A forum selection clause is properly enforced by a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a). See Atl. Marine Const., 571 U.S. at 52. Although a court ordinarily evaluates a
`
`§ 1404(a) motion by considering factors like the convenience of the parties and interests of justice,
`
`see id. at 62, “the calculus changes . . . when the parties’ contract contains a valid forum selection
`
`clause,” id. at 63. Such a clause “represents the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum,”
`
`and “enforcement of valid forum selection clauses . . . protects their legitimate expectations and
`
`furthers vital interests of the justice system.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
`
`Rucker v. Oasis Legal Finance, L.L.C., 632 F.3d 1231, 1236 (11th Cir. 2011) (forum selection
`
`clauses are “presumptively valid”). Thus, a plaintiff’s contrary choice of forum “merits no weight”
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`
`in the face of a forum selection clause and a district court is prohibited from “consider[ing]
`
`
`
`
`
`arguments about the parties’ private interests.” Atl. Marine Const., 571 U.S. at 63. A forum
`
`selection clause should “be given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional
`
`circumstances,” and the plaintiffs seeking to evade the forum selection clause bear the heavy
`
`burden of demonstrating that public-interest factors “overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.” Id. at
`
`60-63.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`This case should be promptly transferred to the Northern District of California. First, a
`
`motion to transfer should be resolved at the outset of litigation. Second, Plaintiffs are subject to a
`
`valid, binding contract with Twitter that requires their claims to be litigated in that district because
`
`(A) Plaintiffs admit that they agreed to the Twitter User Agreement when they signed up for and
`
`continued to use Twitter’s services; (B) Twitter’s User Agreement contains a mandatory forum
`
`selection clause that requires covered disputes to be litigated in a federal or state court located in
`
`San Francisco County, California; and (C) the claims in this case fall within the broad scope of
`
`this forum selection clause. Third, under the governing principles articulated by the Supreme
`
`Court in Atlantic Marine, which dictate that forum selection clauses are to be honored in all but
`
`the most extraordinary circumstances, the forum selection clause here must be enforced. Plaintiffs
`
`cannot show that this is the extraordinary case in which a forum selection clause can be overcome.
`
`Courts routinely enforce Twitter’s forum selection clause, and this case should be no different.
`
`See, e.g., Doshier v. Twitter, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 3d 1171, 1180 (E.D. Ark. 2019); Brittain v. Twitter,
`
`Inc., 2019 WL 8137718, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019); Wingo v. Twitter, Inc., 2014 WL
`
`7013826, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2014).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`The Court Should Transfer This Case Before Taking Any Other Action On
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint
`
`Courts should decide transfer motions before adjudicating any other aspects of the case.
`
`“[O]nce a party files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take top
`
`priority.” In re Apple, Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Indeed, “a trial court must first
`
`address whether it is a proper and convenient venue before addressing any substantive portion of
`
`the case.” Accord In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003); McDonnell Douglas
`
`Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 30 (3d Cir. 1970); Zampa v. JUUL Labs, Inc., 2019 WL 1777730, at
`
`*3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) (observing that motions to transfer are often decided at the outset even
`
`before a motion to remand); Brengle v. ITF Ltd., 2018 WL 5279359, at *3 (M.D Fla. Oct. 24,
`
`2018) (courts may consider motions based on forum selection clause “before addressing [other]
`
`issues . . . when warranted for purposes of convenience, fairness or judicial economy”).
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Governed By A Valid Forum Selection Clause
`
`“When the parties have agreed to a valid forum selection clause, a district court should
`
`ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause.” See Atl. Marine Const., 571 U.S.
`
`at 52. That standard applies to the § 1404 analysis in this case because Twitter’s User Agreement
`
`is a valid, binding contract, and its forum selection clause’s mandatory terms apply to this dispute.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Entered Into A Valid Contract With Twitter
`
`Plaintiffs acknowledge that by using the Twitter platform, they agreed to be bound by the
`
`User Agreement. This creates a binding contract. Under Florida law, “[a] valid contract—
`
`premised on the parties’ requisite willingness to contract—may be ‘manifested through written or
`
`spoken words, or inferred in whole or in part from the parties’ conduct.’” Kolodziej v. Mason, 774
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`
`F.3d 736, 741 (11th Cir. 2014).3 Courts uphold the terms of a forum selection clause where “the
`
`
`
`
`
`clause was reasonably communicated to the consumer,” meaning it was not “hidden or
`
`ambiguous,” and the parties had an opportunity to reject the terms. Krenkel v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels
`
`Ltd., 579 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). And even if contract terms are “presented
`
`on a take-it-or-leave-it basis,” that does not preclude them from being valid if a consumer agreed
`
`to them and was “under no obligation to do so.” See Loomer v. Facebook, Inc., 2020 WL 2926357,
`
`at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020).
`
`Here, Plaintiffs have repeatedly conceded that they knew about and agreed to be bound by
`
`the User Agreement. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 76, 202-204, 224-225. Plaintiffs acknowledge in the
`
`Amended Complaint that “[u]se of [the] [Twitter] platform was expressly conditioned on
`
`agreeing” to the User Agreement, Am. Compl. ¶ 76, and that Twitter “reserves the right to change”
`
`the User Agreement and Terms, id. ¶ 37; See also Terms of Service at 9 (“By continuing to access
`
`or use the Service … you agree to be bound by the revised Terms.”). Mr. Trump has likewise
`
`acknowledged that he is bound by Twitter’s User Agreement and Terms in other settings. For
`
`example, in a filing in another lawsuit, he stated: “Because the @realDonaldTrump account
`
`belongs to Mr. Trump personally, he will continue to have control over that account after his term
`
`of office has ended, subject to Twitter’s terms of service.” Supplemental Brief at 3, Trump v.
`
`
`3 Twitter believes California law governs the question of contract formation in this case, including
`because the Twitter User Agreement states that the “laws of the State of California . . . will govern
`these Terms and any dispute that arises between you and Twitter.” Terms of Service at 9.
`Although the Supreme Court has held that where a valid forum selection clause exists, the pre-
`selected forum’s choice-of-law rules apply, see Atl. Marine Const., 571 U.S. at 65, for purposes
`of the contract-formation standard, Florida and California laws do not materially differ, compare,
`e.g., Kolodziej v. Mason, 774 F.3d 736, 740-741 (11th Cir. 2014), with Rockridge Trust v. Wells
`Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2013), and therefore this brief analyzes the
`contract-formation question under Florida law.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220 (No. 20-197), 2021 WL 276510,
`
`
`
`
`
`at *3 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ continued use of the platform with that knowledge plainly
`
`manifests assent under Florida law. See L & H Constr. Co. v. Circle Redmont, Inc., 55 So.3d 630,
`
`634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). Indeed, courts routinely treat Twitter’s User Agreement as a
`
`binding contract in enforcing its forum selection clause. See supra, at p. 6. Accordingly, the User
`
`Agreement, including the forum selection clause, is binding on Plaintiffs.
`
`B.
`
`The User Agreement Contains A Mandatory Forum Selection Clause
`
`Twitter’s forum selection clause “‘dictates an exclusive forum for litigation under the
`
`contract.’” Global Satellite Commc’n Co. v. Starmill U.K. Ltd., 378 F.3d 1269, 1272 (11th Cir.
`
`2004) (quoting Snapper, Inc. v. Redan, 171 F.3d 1249, 1262 n.24 (11th Cir. 1999)). The forum
`
`selection clause provides that “[a]ll disputes related to these Terms or the Services will be brought
`
`solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States.”
`
`Terms of Service at 9. The instruction that “all disputes” “will be brought” in California courts
`
`cannot be read as permissive, thus Twitter’s forum selection clause is mandatory and must be
`
`enforced. See Emerald Grande, Inc. v. Junkin, 334 F. App’x 973, 976 (11th Cir. 2009) (clause
`
`declaring that Okaloosa Courts “will be the venue for any dispute” was mandatory (emphasis
`
`added)). Indeed, other courts to consider the question have found Twitter’s forum selection clause
`
`to be mandatory. E.g., Brittain v. Twitter, Inc., 2019 WL 110967, at *2-3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2019);
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. Skootle Corp., 2012 WL 2375486 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012); VS Techs., LLC v.
`
`Twitter, Inc., 2011 WL 11074291, at *2 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2011).
`
`C.
`
`The Claims Here Are Within The Forum Selection Clause’s Broad Scope
`
`The forum selection clause in Twitter’s User Agreement requires “all disputes related to
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-22441-RNS Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2021 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`
`[Twitter’s] Terms or the Services” to be litigated in California. See Terms of Service at 9.4 This
`
`
`
`
`
`clause encompasses Plaintiffs’ claims, all of which relate to Plaintiffs’ use of the Twitter platform
`
`(the “Services”) and to Twitter’s enforcement of its “Terms,” including those Terms’ requirement
`
`that users agree to “compl[y] with” Twitter’s “rules” and their reservation of Twitter’s “right to
`
`remove Content that violates the User Agreement.” Plaintiffs’ claims are encompassed by this
`
`broad language for at least two reasons.
`
`First, Plaintiffs’ claims challenge their loss of access to and use of their Twitter accounts
`
`and thus “relate[] to” Twitter’s “Services.” The Terms define “Services” to encompass, among
`
`other things, “our various websites, . . . applications, . . . and other covered services.” Terms of
`
`Service at 5.5 Plaintiffs’ central grievance is that Twitter took enforcement action against their
`
`accounts in a manner that limited or removed entirely their ability to use those services to post
`
`content, and Plaintiffs seek relief from those restrictions. For example, Mr. Trump complains that
`
`Twitter “permanently banned [him] from his Twitter account, blocking his ability to communicate
`
`with his approximately 89 million followers.” Am. Compl. ¶¶ 113-116. Similarly, the remaining
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Twitter temporarily locked and eventually suspended their accounts, Am.
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 121-124, 135-137, 142-146, 159, or “purged” their followers, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 128-129.
`
`These allegations relate to Plaintiffs’ ability to use and access the Twitter platform, whether
`
`through Twitter’s “website” or its “application”—and thus relate to Twitter’s core Services. Terms
`
`
`4 When deciding a § 1404(a) transfer motion, the court may consider undisputed facts outside of
`the pleadings. See, e.g., Wynn v. Kisinger, Campo & Assocs., Corp., 2005 WL 8154579, at *2
`(S.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2005) (considering affidavit filed in support of a § 1404(a) transfer motion);
`Birdwell v. Royal Caribbean Cruise, A/S, 1985 WL 66, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 1985) (same).
`5 The Amended Complaint alleges that each Plaintiff maintained a Twitter account, which, as
`explained above, constitutes the use of Twitter’s “Services.” See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 113-117 (Mr.
`Trump); id. ¶¶ 118-124 (Ms. Cuadros); id. ¶¶ 125-129 (American Conservative Union); id.
`¶¶ 130-137 (Mr. Barboza); id. ¶¶ 138-146 (Mr. Latella); id. ¶¶ 147-155 (Mr. Root); id. ¶¶ 156-167
`(Dr. Wolf).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv