`
`
`
`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 80
`
`No. 21-16210
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE,
`a Georgia non-profit organization,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation;
`MARK ZUCKERBERG, a California resident;
`SCIENCE FEEDBACK, a French corporation;
`THE POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA STUDIES, INC.,
`a Florida corporation; and DOES 1-20,
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SI
`Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge
`
`
`APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
`
`ROGER I. TEICH
`Cal. State Bar No. 147076
`290 Nevada Street
`San Francisco, CA 94110
`Telephone: (415) 948-0045
`rteich@juno.com
`
`JED RUBENFELD (pro hac vice)
`1031 Forest Road
`New Haven, CT 06515
`Telephone: (203) 387-2505
`rubenfeldjed@gmail.com
`
`ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. (pro hac vice)
`MARY HOLLAND (pro hac vice)
`Children’s Health Defense
`1227 North Peachtree Parkway
`Suite 202
`Peachtree City, GA 30269
`Telephone: (917) 743-3868
`mary.holland@childrenshealthdefense.org
`
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 2 of 80
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Appellant submits the following statement of corporate interests and
`
`affiliations for the use of the judges of this Court: Appellant has no corporate
`
`interests. Appellant is not a publicly-held corporation or other publicly-held entity.
`
`Appellant has no stock, so no publicly-held corporation or entity owns any stock in
`
`Appellant.
`
`Dated: October 28, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
`Founder and Chairman
`Children’s Health Defense
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARY S. HOLLAND
`General Counsel
`Children’s Health Defense
`
`
`
`
`
`ROGER I. TEICH
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`Children’s Health Defense
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 3 of 80
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page #
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 3
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 6
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATED THE WELL-KNOWN
`F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) STANDARD OF REVIEW. .................................... 8
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING CHD’S
`CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS. ......................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards Governing a State Action Determination....... 10
`
`B.
`
`CHD Has Adequately Pleaded Joint Action. ............................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Applicable Legal Standards. ........................................... 12
`
`Direct Evidence of Public-Private Agreement to
`“Curb Misinformation.” .................................................. 13
`
`Circumstantial Evidence of Joint Action. ....................... 16
`
`Substantial Benefits Given by Facebook to the
`Federal Government. ...................................................... 18
`
`The District Court’s Further Requirement that
`Federal Actors Be Shown To Be Involved in the
`Specific Censorship Directed at CHD Is Legally
`Baseless. .......................................................................... 19
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 4 of 80
`
`
`
`C.
`
`CHD Has Adequately Pleaded Coercion. ................................. 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Applicable Standards. ..................................................... 22
`
`Federal Officials Repeatedly Threatened Defendants
`with Adverse Regulatory and Legal Action If They
`Refused to Censor So-Called “Vaccine
`Misinformation.” ............................................................ 26
`
`These Repeated Warnings Are More Than Adequate
`To Raise a Plausible Inference of Coercion Under
`Long-Established Case Law. .......................................... 30
`
`The District Court’s Further Requirement—that
`CHD Allege that Facebook was Directed to Take
`the “Specific” Acts of Censorship At Issue Here—Is
`Untenable and Contradicts Ninth Circuit Case Law. ..... 34
`
`CHD Has Alleged that Federal Actors Directed
`Defendants to Take Specific Censorship Action
`with Regard to CHD ....................................................... 37
`
`D.
`
`CHD Has Adequately Pleaded Significant Encouragement. .... 38
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Unique Convergence Here of Joint Action, Pressure,
`and Immunity-by-Statute Compels a Finding that State
`Action Has Been Adequately Pleaded. ..................................... 41
`
`CHD Has Otherwise Adequately Pleaded Its
`Constitutional Claims. ............................................................... 43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`This Circuit Permits First Amendment Bivens
`Actions Where, as Here, the First Amendment Right
`Is Well Established and No Alternative Remedies
`Exist. ............................................................................... 43
`
`CHD Has Adequately Pleaded Zuckerberg’s
`Personal Involvement. .................................................... 44
`
`CHD’s Constitutional Claims Against Facebook Are
`Not Foreclosed by Malesko. ........................................... 49
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 5 of 80
`
`
`
`III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED
`CHD’S LANHAM ACT CLAIMS. .................................................... 51
`
`IV. THE DISTRICT COURT CLEARLY ERRED IN DISMISSING
`CHD’S RICO CLAIM. ....................................................................... 53
`
`V. DISMISSAL OF SCIENCE FEEDBACK WAS AN ABUSE OF
`DISCRETION. .................................................................................... 57
`
`A.
`
`Statement of Facts. .................................................................... 57
`
`B.
`
`Legal Analysis. .......................................................................... 59
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 62
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 63
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 6 of 80
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abu Jamal v. Nat’l Pub. Radio,
`No. 96-0594, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13604 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 1997) ............... 24
`
`Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
`398 U.S. 144 (1970) ................................................................................ 12, 21, 22
`
`AFGE Local 1 v. Stone,
`502 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 49
`
`American Family Ass’n, Inc. v. City of San Francisco,
`277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................ 24, 25, 30
`
`Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch, Corp.,
`985 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 52
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................ 2, 45
`
`Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart,
`807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) .................................................................. 23, 24, 25
`
`Bantam Books v. Sullivan,
`372 U.S. 58 (1963) ......................................................................22, 23, 24, 25, 30
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Bendiburg v. Dempsey,
`909 F.2d 463 (11th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Berger v. Hanlon,
`129 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 526 U.S. 808
`(per curiam), opinion reinstated, 188 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................... 12
`
`Birthright v. Birthright, Inc.,
`827 F. Supp. 1114 (D.N.J. 1993) ........................................................................ 51
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 7 of 80
`
`
`
`Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
`403 U.S. 388 (1971) ............................................................................................ 35
`
`Boule v. Egbert,
`998 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................ 43, 44
`
`Bozzio v. EMI Grp. Ltd.,
`811 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Brach Van Houten Holding, Inc. v. Save Brach’s Coalition for Chicago,
`856 F. Supp. 472 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ....................................................................... 51
`
`Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co.,
`553 U.S. 639 (2008) ...................................................................................... 55, 56
`
`Brodheim v. Cry,
`584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 25
`
`Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority,
`365 U.S. 715 (1961) .......................................................................... 10, 11, 19, 39
`
`Canatella v. California,
`304 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 38
`
`Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`827 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................... 23, 33
`
`Carpenter v. United States,
`484 U.S. 19 (1987) .............................................................................................. 55
`
`Committee for Idaho’s High Desert v. Yost,
`881 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Idaho 1995), aff’d, 92 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996) ............ 51
`
`Constien v. United States,
`628 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 57
`
`Cooper v. Pickett,
`137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 3, 4
`
`Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr.,
`388 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 55
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 8 of 80
`
`
`
`Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko,
`534 U.S. 61 (2001) ........................................................................................ 49, 50
`
`Daniels v. Alphabet Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-04687-VKD, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64385 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 31, 2021)..................................................................................................... 24
`
`Davis v. United States,
`756 Fed. Appx. 786 (10th Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 57
`
`De Tie v. Orange Cty.,
`152 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 61
`
`Dennis v. Sparks,
`449 U.S. 24 (1980) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42160 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) ................................. 60
`
`Figueroa v. Kern Cty.,
`No. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41068 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021) ............................. 13
`
`Fin. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC,
`783 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 9
`
`George v. Edholm,
`752 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 11, 39
`
`Goddard v. Google, Inc.,
`No. C 08-2738 JF, U.S. Dist. Lexis 101890 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) ............ 40
`
`Gregory v. Laos,
`No. 20-15261, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35603 (9th Cir. Nov. 12, 2020) ...... 57, 60
`
`Hammerhead Enters., Inc. v. Brezenoff,
`707 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1983) ................................................................................. 30
`
`Hang On, Inc. v. City of Arlington,
`65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 38
`
`Harmoni Int’l Spice, Inc. v. Hume,
`914 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 55
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 9 of 80
`
`
`
`Howerton v. Gabica,
`708 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................ 10, 13
`
`Iancu v. Brunetti,
`139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) ........................................................................................ 43
`
`In re Alphabet Securities Litig.,
`1 F.4th 687 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig.,
`729 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 8
`
`In re Sheehan,
`253 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 60, 61
`
`Kaahumanu v. Hawaii,
`682 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 38
`
`Kelly v. United States,
`140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020) ........................................................................................ 55
`
`Kernats v. O’Sullivan,
`35 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 32
`
`Lima v. United States Dep’t of Educ.,
`947 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 49, 50
`
`Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.,
`431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 54
`
`Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,
`458 U.S. 419 (1982) ............................................................................................ 50
`
`Martinez v. UPMC Susquehanna,
`986 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2021) ................................................................................. 8
`
`Mathis v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.,
`891 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................ 20, 25, 35
`
`Mathis v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.,
`75 F.3d 498 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 36
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 10 of 80
`
`
`
`McGuckin v. Smith,
`974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 57
`
`Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cty.,
`192 F.3d 1283 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 13, 22
`
`Ministerio Roca Solida v. McKelvey,
`820 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 49
`
`Minneci v. Pollard,
`565 U.S. 118 (2012) ............................................................................................ 50
`
`Monterey Plaza Hotel Ltd. Pshp. v. Local 483,
`215 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 56
`
`Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust, Co.,
`339 U.S. 206 (1950) ............................................................................................ 59
`
`Near v. Minnesota,
`283 U.S. 697 (1931) ............................................................................................ 43
`
`Norwood v. Harrison,
`413 U.S. 455 (1973) ........................................................................................ 8, 11
`
`Okwedy v. Molinari,
`333 F.3d 339 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................... 24, 25, 33
`
`Packingham v. North Carolina,
`137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Parents for Privacy v. Barr,
`949 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 8
`
`Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington,
`51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Pasadena Republican Club v. Western Justice Ctr.,
`985 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................... 11, 19
`
`Pasquantino v. United States,
`544 U.S. 349 (2005) ...................................................................................... 54, 56
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 11 of 80
`
`
`
`Pinnacle Armor, Inc., v. United States,
`648 F. 3d 708 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 9, 45
`
`Railway Employees’ Dep’t v. Hanson,
`351 U.S. 225 (1956) ............................................................................................ 40
`
`Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc.,
`975 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................ 10, 11, 12, 41
`
`Resolute Forest Prods. v. Greenpeace Int’l,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10263 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................ 55
`
`Rimac v. Duncan,
`219 Fed. Appx. 535 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 12
`
`Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.,
`823 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 43
`
`Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.,
`806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 54, 56
`
`Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents,
`967 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n,
`489 U.S. 602 (1989) ...................................................................................... 40, 41
`
`Smith v. Gaffney,
`No. CV 18-4366-CJC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81145 (C.D. Cal.
`Jan. 7, 2020) ........................................................................................................ 45
`
`Starr v. Baca,
`652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 45
`
`Threshold Enters. Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 139 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................ 14
`
`Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor,
`471 U.S. 290 (1985) ............................................................................................ 38
`
`Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 12, 19
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 12 of 80
`
`
`
`United Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n,
`531 U.S. 288 (2001) ................................................................................ 10, 11, 39
`
`United States v. Clarke,
`445 U.S. 253 (1980) ............................................................................................ 50
`
`United States v. Davis,
`482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973) .................................................................... 8, 11, 34
`
`United States v. Gatto,
`986 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 56
`
`United States v. Ross,
`32 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 34
`
`United States v. Sorich,
`523 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 57
`
`United States v. Walther,
`652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981) .............................................................................. 35
`
`United We Stand America, Inc. v. United We Stand America New York, Inc.,
`128 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 51
`
`Winter v. Gardens Regional Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc.,
`953 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Borodkin,
`798 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 55
`
`Yartzoff v. Thomas,
`809 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Zeran v. America Online, Inc.,
`129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................. 40
`
`Ziglar v. Abassi,
`137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) ........................................................................................ 44
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 13 of 80
`
`
`
`United States Constitution
`
`First Amendment .................................................................................... 6, passim
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 1125(a) ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`18 U.S.C.
`§ 1964(a) ............................................................................................................... 3
`§ 1964(c) ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1291 .................................................................................................................... 3
`§ 1331 .................................................................................................................... 3
`§ 1332(a) ............................................................................................................... 3
`§ 2201 .................................................................................................................... 3
`§ 2202 .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`47 U.S.C.
`§ 230 ...................................................................................................... 26, passim
`§ 230(c)(1) .......................................................................................................... 41
`§ 230(c)(2) .................................................................................................... 40, 41
`§ 230(c)(2)(A) ..................................................................................................... 40
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`Rule 4 .................................................................................................................. 60
`Rule 4(f) .............................................................................................................. 60
`Rule 4(h)(2) ......................................................................................................... 60
`Rule 4(j)(1) .......................................................................................................... 60
`Rule 4(m) ............................................................................................................ 60
`Rule 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................... 2, passim
`Rule 62 ................................................................................................................ 59
`
`Law Review Articles
`
`Dawn Nunziato, The Death of the Public Forum in Cyberspace, 20
`Berk. Tech. L.J. 1115 (2005) .............................................................................. 40
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 14 of 80
`
`
`
`Internet Sources
`
`Blumenthal Slams Facebook, Twitter “Woefully Inadequate” Policies
`on Vaccine Misinformation, THE HILL (Mar. 15, 2021),
`https://thehill.com/policy/technology/543286-blumenthal-slams-
`facebook-twitter-woefully-inadequate-policies-addressing ............................... 29
`
`Cecilia Kang & Mike Isaac, U.S. and States Say Facebook Illegally
`Crushed Competition, NEW YORK TIMES (Dec. 9, 2020),
`https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/technology/facebook-
`antitrust-monopoly.html ..................................................................................... 32
`
`COVID-19 and Vaccine Policy Updates & Protections,
`FACEBOOK.COM,
`https://www.facebook.com/help/230764881494641 .................................... 14, 21
`
`Daniel Liss, Today’s Real Story: The Facebook Monopoly,
`TECHCRUNCH (Aug. 19, 2021),
`https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/todays-real-story-the-facebook-
`monopoly/ ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Dave Gershgorn, White House Pins Anti-Vax Info on Facebook, FORBES
`(Jul. 16, 2021),
`https://fortune.com/2021/07/16/facebook-white-house-anti-vax-misinfo ......... 39
`
`Donie O’Sullivan, White House turns up the heat on Big Tech’s
`COVID “disinformation dozen,” CNN (Jul. 16, 2021),
`https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/16/tech/misinformation-covid-
`facebook-twitter-white-house/index.html ........................................................... 37
`
`Flu Season: U.S. Public Health Preparedness and Response (Dec. 4, 2019),
`https://www.cdc.gov/washington/testimony/2019/t20191204.htm .................... 14
`
`Glenn Greenwald, Congress Escalates Pressure on Tech Giants to Censor
`More, Threatening the First Amendment, SUBSTACK (Feb. 20, 2021),
`https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressescalates-pressure-on-tech ............. 31
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 15 of 80
`
`
`
`Jessica Guynn, Hate Speech, Censorship, Capitol Riot, Section 230:
`Lawmakers Slam Facebook, Google and Twitter, Warn of Regulation,
`USA TODAY (Mar. 25, 2021),
`https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/25/facebook-google-
`youtube-twitter-dorsey-zuckerbergpichai-section-230-
`hearing/6990173002 ........................................................................................... 32
`
`Judicial Watch: CDC Coordinated with Facebook On COVID
`Messaging and ‘Misinformation’; CDC Received Over $3.5
`Million in Free Advertising from Social Media Companies,
`JUDICIALWATCH.ORG (Jul. 28, 2021),
`https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/cdc-facebook-covid-
`messagging/ ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`Mansoor Iqbal, Facebook Revenue and Usage Statistics (2021),
`BUSINESS OF APPS (Sept. 24, 2021),
`https://www.businessofapps.com/data/facebook-statistics ................................... 7
`
`Mark Zuckerberg & Jack Dorsey Testimony Transcript, Senate Tech
`Hearing November 17, 2020, REV.COM,
`https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mark-zuckerberg-jack-
`dorsey-testimony-transcript-senate-tech-hearing-november-17 ......................... 29
`
`Mike Isaac & Kate Conger, Facebook Bans Trump Through End of
`His Term, NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 7, 2021)
`https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/technology/facebook-trump-
`ban.html .............................................................................................................. 48
`
`Orion Rummler, Zuckerberg on Misinformation, AXIOS ON HBO
`(Sept. 9, 2020),
`https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccine-facebook-mark-
`zuckerberg-9eae01a2-e6b2-4f4c-a48c-986bac665a2b.html .............................. 47
`
`Report, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the
`State, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business,
`Protecting Journalism in the Age of Digital Platforms,
`JULIACAGE.COM (Jul. 1, 2019),
`https://juliacage.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Media-Report.pdf .............. 32
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 16 of 80
`
`
`
`Ryan Mac & Craig Silverman, ‘Mark Changed the Rules’: How
`Facebook Went Easy on Alex Jones and Other Right Wing Figures,
`BUZZFEED (Feb. 22, 2021),
`https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/mark-zuckerberg-
`joel-kaplan-facebook-alex-jones ......................................................................... 48
`
`S. Schechner, J. Horwitz & E. Glazer, The Facebook Files: How
`Facebook Hobbled Mark Zuckerberg’s Bid to Get America
`Vaccinated, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sept. 17, 2021),
`https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-
`vaccinated-11631880296 ........................................................................ 16, 46, 47
`
`Salvador Rodriguez, Biden on Facebook: ‘They’re killing people’
`with vaccine misinformation, CNBC (Jul. 16, 2021),
`https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/white-house-says-facebook-
`needs-to-do-more-to-fight-vaccine-misinformation.html .................................. 39
`
`Simon Chandler, Facebook’s Coronavirus Misinformation Policy At
`Odds with Political Ads Stance, FORBES (Apr. 16, 2020),
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonchandler/2020/04/16/facebook
`s-coronavirus-misinformation-policy-at-odds-with-political-ads-
`stance/?sh=7d36cf473610 ................................................................................... 17
`
`Steven Nelson, White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor
`over COVID ‘misinformation, NEW YORK POST (Jul. 15, 2021),
`https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-
`facebook-to-censor-due-to-covid-19-misinformation/ ....................................... 15
`
`The Editorial Board, Joe Biden (Interview), NEW YORK TIMES (Jan. 19, 2020),
`https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-biden-
`nytimes-interview.html ....................................................................................... 27
`
`Transcript, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon
`General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, THE WHITE HOUSE, (Jul. 15, 2021),
`https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-
`briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-
`and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/ ..................................... 15
`
`xv
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 17 of 80
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Partnering with a federal agency, taking directions from federal health
`
`officials, working directly and pursuant to agreement with the White House,
`
`coercively threatened by federal lawmakers, and spurred by an immunity granted
`
`by federal statute, Facebook has adopted a policy of censoring all speech
`
`challenging governmental orthodoxy on COVID and vaccine safety. The censored
`
`speech is propagandistically called “misinformation” even when, as here, it is
`
`completely factual, and Facebook is instructed by federal health authorities which
`
`COVID- or vaccine-related facts the American people can and cannot discuss—
`
`like the claim that COVID originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, which for months
`
`was verboten on Facebook until prominent federal officials backtracked and
`
`admitted it might be true, after which Facebook suddenly lifted its ban.1
`
`Executing this government-induced and -directed censorship policy,
`
`Facebook has waged a comprehensive campaign to silence Appellant Children’s
`
`Health Defense (“CHD”), falsely branding CHD’s vaccine-related speech as
`
`“false,” removing its posts, disabling its donation button, advising users to
`
`“unfollow CHD,” and ultimately shutting down the 800,000-subscriber Instagram
`
`account2 of CHD’s chairman, public face, and chief spokesman, Robert F.
`
`
`
`2-ER-157-58.
`
`Instagram is a Facebook platform.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 21-16210, 10/28/2021, ID: 12272238, DktEntry: 19, Page 18 of 80
`
`
`
`Kennedy, Jr.
`
`Such are the core allegations in this lawsuit, and they plead a valid claim of
`
`state action. Taking these allegations as true—which they are, and which the
`
`District Court was required to do—Facebook is acting as a censorship instrument
`
`and agent of the United States government, violating the First Amendment’s
`
`fundamental prohibitions aga