## Facts

- Plaintiffs, New York residents who published pro-democracy materials about China, alleged Baidu operated a Chinese-language search engine accessible in the United States.
- Plaintiffs claimed their articles, videos, and related content appeared in other search engines’ results but not in Baidu’s results.
- Plaintiffs alleged Baidu intentionally suppressed pro-democracy topics (including the June 4th Movement, the Jasmine Movement, and the China Democratic Party) and did so at the request or direction of the People’s Republic of China.
- Plaintiffs sought damages and other relief under federal civil-rights statutes and New York anti-discrimination and equal-protection provisions.
- Baidu moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that its search results reflect editorial choices protected by the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether an internet search engine’s decisions to include, exclude, and rank results are protected speech under the First Amendment.
2. Whether civil-rights, public-accommodations, and state constitutional provisions may be applied to impose liability on a private search engine for suppressing particular political viewpoints.
3. Whether alleged influence by a foreign government plausibly converts a private search engine’s results into unprotected conduct or state action for purposes of the asserted claims.

## Decision

- The court granted Baidu’s Rule 12(c) motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
- The court held that, on the pleaded facts, Baidu’s search results constitute protected speech because they reflect editorial judgments about what content and viewpoints to present.
- The court concluded that allowing the claims to proceed would impermissibly penalize or compel Baidu’s speech, contrary to the First Amendment.
- The court rejected the argument that alleged foreign-government influence stripped Baidu of First Amendment protection or plausibly made Baidu a state actor for purposes of the pleaded civil-rights theories.

## Legal Principles

- Editorial judgments about selection, omission, and arrangement of third-party content may constitute protected speech.
- A private speaker generally has a First Amendment right to favor or disfavor viewpoints; laws cannot be applied in a way that compels a private entity to publish or present speech it chooses to exclude.
- Civil-rights and anti-discrimination statutes cannot be enforced to impose liability for protected expressive decisions.
- Allegations that a private entity’s editorial choices align with or are influenced by a foreign government, without more, do not plausibly establish state action under U.S. civil-rights statutes.

## Conclusion

The court held that a search engine’s results are protected expressive editorial judgments and that claims seeking to impose liability for excluding political content are barred by the First Amendment, warranting dismissal on the pleadings.


Zhang v. Baidu.com Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)