Facts
- Twitter, Inc. operated a widely used social-media platform where users posted short messages (“tweets”). Jack Dorsey was Twitter’s cofounder and then-CEO.
- Donald J. Trump had used Twitter since 2009. Following the January 6, 2021 events at the U.S. Capitol, Twitter permanently suspended Trump’s account on January 8, 2021, stating it acted to prevent further incitement of violence.
- Additional plaintiffs (including the American Conservative Union and several individual Twitter users) alleged that Twitter also suspended or restricted their accounts. Plaintiffs sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of affected users.
- Plaintiffs sued Twitter and Dorsey, alleging Twitter violated the First Amendment by “censoring” plaintiffs’ speech.
- Because the First Amendment generally applies only to government conduct, plaintiffs relied on a state-action theory. They alleged that Twitter acted “on the government’s behalf” because Democratic members of Congress and other officials publicly urged social-media platforms to moderate content and, according to plaintiffs, pressured Twitter to remove Trump.
- Plaintiffs also asserted claims under Florida statutes (including consumer-protection and social-media-related provisions), and sought declaratory relief that 47 U.S.C. § 230 is unconstitutional.
- Twitter moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), pointing to (among other things) Twitter’s Terms of Service reserving broad discretion to suspend accounts and remove content.
Issues
- Did plaintiffs plausibly allege that Twitter’s suspension and restriction decisions were fairly attributable to the federal government—through coercion, significant encouragement, or joint participation—so that Twitter could be treated as a state actor subject to the First Amendment?
- Did plaintiffs state viable claims under Florida consumer-protection and social-media statutes in light of Twitter’s Terms of Service and limits on applying state law to a private platform’s moderation decisions?
- Did plaintiffs plead a justiciable basis (including standing and redressability) for declaratory relief that 47 U.S.C. § 230 is unconstitutional?
Decision
- The court granted Twitter’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the amended complaint in full.
- The First Amendment claim was dismissed because Twitter is a private company, and the complaint did not plausibly allege coercion, significant encouragement, or joint action by federal officials sufficient to convert Twitter’s independent moderation decisions into government action.
- The Florida statutory claims were dismissed because Twitter’s Terms of Service gave Twitter broad contractual discretion over account access and content moderation (including the ability to suspend or terminate accounts), defeating theories that Twitter acted unlawfully by exercising that discretion.
- The § 230 constitutional challenge and related request for declaratory relief were dismissed because plaintiffs did not plead a viable, justiciable claim to invalidate § 230 in this dispute, including deficiencies in establishing a concrete controversy and redressability.
Legal Principles
- The First Amendment constrains governmental conduct, not a private platform’s decisions, unless the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the state under a recognized state-action theory.
- Public statements by government officials urging platforms to moderate content, without plausible allegations of coercive power, binding directives, or coordinated decision-making, do not by themselves turn private moderation into state action.
- Where a platform’s user agreement reserves broad discretion to remove content or suspend accounts, claims premised on allegedly wrongful “censorship” may fail because the complained-of conduct is authorized by contract.
- A request for declaratory relief—especially one seeking to declare a federal statute unconstitutional—requires standing and a live controversy, including an injury traceable to the challenged statute and likely to be remedied by the requested declaration.
Conclusion
Trump v. Twitter dismissed a First Amendment challenge to Twitter’s permanent suspension of Trump’s account (and related claims by other plaintiffs), holding that allegations of political pressure from some members of Congress did not plausibly establish state action, that Florida statutory theories could not overcome Twitter’s contractual discretion under its Terms of Service, and that plaintiffs failed to plead a justiciable basis to obtain declaratory relief invalidating § 230.