Dismissal ‘Only Path Forward’ for ‘Viewpoint Discrimination’ Suit: Meta
Meta seeks the dismissal of a Jan. 27 complaint alleging it’s engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” against two private Facebook groups, called Wise Guys I and Wise Guys II, in violation of the First Amendment and the Texas social media law HB 20 (see 2301300023), said Meta’s motion Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00217) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Despite the plaintiffs’ “eagerness” to sue over alleged restrictions Meta placed on content that users of Facebook groups posted or attempted to post on Facebook, they refuse “to provide any detail whatsoever about the content at issue -- or about themselves, for that matter,” said the motion. In their allegations Meta routinely censored their content, “at no point does the complaint ever identify the posts or users in question,” it said: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demand far more.”
This “absence of factual allegations” requires dismissal of the complaint, said the motion. “It almost goes without saying” that a plaintiff can’t plead a legally cognizable right of action for censorship and discrimination “without identifying the object and circumstances of the alleged censorship and discrimination,” it said. That’s “especially true” for any claim under Texas’ “novel” HB 20, which allows private plaintiffs to sue over only certain types of discrimination involving specific kinds of online content, it said.
It’s also “axiomatic” for a claim of First Amendment viewpoint discrimination, said the motion. The plaintiffs obviously can’t assert “an unconstitutional restriction of expression without naming the expression,” it said. A “fact-free complaint” can’t state any sort of claim, “let alone a plausible claim,” under Texas or federal law, it said.
The “empty assertions” in the complaint “fail to create personal jurisdiction,” said the motion. The plaintiffs admit Meta is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California, yet the only basis they offer for jurisdiction in Texas is that Meta may be found to do business in the state, it said: “That is a legal conclusion, not a factual allegation, and thus cannot hale Meta into a Texas court.”
Each of those defects “requires dismissal in its own right,” said the motion. “But the flaws in the complaint run much deeper.” The plaintiffs have no hope of stating a viable claim under HB 20, “because this law seeks to control Meta’s out-of-state decisions and therefore violates the Commerce Clause,” it said. Their First Amendment claim against a private company “is futile given the one-sided host of authorities rejecting such a theory,” it said.
The court, “to be clear,” shouldn’t reach these issues because the plaintiffs sued “in violation of a forum-selection clause,” said the motion. But were the court to address the complaint, “the only path forward would be dismissal,” it said.