Calif. Court Agrees Twitter User Can't Sue Over Trump Moderation

Rutenberg claimed Twitter violated her state constitutional right to free speech when the platform moderated and deleted Trump’s account because it prevented her from accessing an “interactive space” for replying to the Republican’s tweets. Twitter demurred, arguing the lawsuit was barred by Section 230; the social platform isn’t a state actor; Rutenberg lacks standing because Twitter moderated Trump’s account, not hers; and Trump is no longer president. The trial court agreed, so the Twitter user appealed. Although Rutenberg denies it, she's “seeking to hold Twitter liable for ‘typical publisher conduct protected by section 230,’” wrote Judge Kathleen Banke. “It makes no difference that Rutenberg has styled her claim as one for violation of free speech rights under our state constitution.” The allegedly injurious conduct included “Twitter’s decisions regarding whether to edit content posted by an account holder or to ban it altogether,” she said. “Rutenberg’s allegations demonstrate that her state free speech claim is grounded on Twitter’s editorial actions with respect to Trump’s account, and not on Twitter’s origination and posting of independent ‘news’ content. That these editorial actions resulted in an alteration of the ‘physical interactive space,’ and specifically the elimination of this space, does not change the fact that her claims are rooted in” Twitter editorial decisions. “The label a plaintiff ascribes to a social media platform’s conduct is not determinative of whether section 230 bars the lawsuit.” Banke added, “There undoubtedly is tension between the dual purposes of section 230 -- to limit federal regulation and thereby encourage free speech … and to encourage the monitoring and control of content that a private social media platform deems offensive.” But she said that’s a matter for Congress.