Content Regulation / Censorship, Digital Rights
Netchoice v. Paxton
Nominations Are Now Open for the 2024 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes. Learn more and nominate here.
In Progress Mixed Outcome
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
On November 13, 2015, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California dismissed the Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) case against Facebook for allegedly blocking the group’s page from users in India. SFJ claimed that Facebook blocked its page at the Indian government’s behest and that after several requests, Facebook failed to restore access to the page or provide any explanation for the page block. The Court held that SFJ’s discrimination claims were precluded under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which protects providers of interactive computer services by barring courts from treating service providers like Facebook as the publishers or speakers of speech created by others.
The plaintiff, Sikhs for Justice Inc. (SFJ), is a New York non-profit organization dedicated to human rights advocacy. SFJ, through its Facebook page, sought to highlight the “plight of religious minorities of India and their treatment by successive Indian Governments” and promotes independence for Sikhs in the Indian state of Punjab” [p. 2]. Via the Facebook page, SFJ organized a series of political and human rights advocacy campaigns, such as promoting the right to self-determination for the Sikh people in Punjab and opposing the forced conversions of religious minorities to Hinduism that allegedly took place in India since the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in May 2014.
On May 1, 2015, Facebook blocked access to the SFJ Page in India without prior notice or an explanation to the organization. According to the plaintiff, Facebook acted “on its own or the behest of the Government of India” [p.2] because of discrimination against SFJ members based on race, religion, ancestry, and national origin.
On May 15, 2015, and May 29, 2015, SFJ requested the platform to restore access to their Facebook page in India and explain why it had restricted access. Yet, Facebook failed to respond to the SFJ plea substantively, nor did it not restore access to the SFJ Page in India.
On June 2, 2015, SJP filed a complaint claiming that it had sustained damages due to the loss of content in India. Specifically, SJP argued that Facebook had violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting two actions under the federal statute by seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
Moreover, in their complaint, SJP alleged three state law claims: (1) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-51.3; (2) breach of contract; and (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On July 24, 2015, Facebook filed a motion to dismiss, an anti-SLAPP motion to strike for attorney’s fees and costs, and a request for judicial notice. However, on August 4, 2015, SFJ opposed the platform’s claims.
The main issue for the Court to examine in this case was if Facebook satisfied the three requirements for Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunity. Additionally, the Court paid particular attention to SJF’s discrimination claims against Facebook in removing the SFJ Page in India, thus analyzing if such conduct was protected against liability under the CDA.
In its complaint, SFJ pursued a permanent injunction requiring Facebook to restore access to the organization’s Facebook page in India, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and the exhibition of any communications between the platform and the government of India related to the suspension of the plaintiff’s page.
Facebook contended that all SJF’s claims were barred by the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 USC § 230, and the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Likewise, the platform stressed that SJF had failed to state claims for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) and moved to strike SFJ state law claims and for attorney’s fees and costs under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
The Court divided its analysis into three parts: first, it examined whether SJF could state a federal claim for relief; then turned to Facebook’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s state law claims, and finally, it addressed Facebook’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike and for attorney’s fees and costs.
The Court noted that § 230(c)(1) provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” [p. 6] It then stated that Section 230 bars Title II claims if: “(1) Defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the information for which Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant liable is information provided by another information content provider; and (3) Plaintiff’s claim seeks to hold Defendant liable as the publisher or speaker of that information.” [p. 6] The Court addressed the requirements in light of the immediate case’s circumstances.
Regarding the first requirement, the Court remarked that as defined in the case of Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., the defendant was an interactive computer service since it provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer service as required by the CDA.
Concerning the second requirement, SFJ contended that its Facebook page was not “information provided by another information content provider” yet considered that while CDA immunized website operators from removing third-party content, in the matter in issue, there was no “third-party content” since all content was created by the members of the SFJ Page. The Court noted that although SFJ theory was not entirely clear, it appeared that they denied the existence of “third-party content” because there were only two parties in the present dispute. Yet, the Court stressed that SFJ misunderstood the CDA since the statute prevents publisher liability against an interactive computer service for content created by “another information content provider.” [p.7] The Court emphasized that an “information content provider” is defined as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” [p. 7] Moreover, it referenced the case of Batzel v. Smith and to Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC to highlight that the CDA immunizes interactive computer service providers that passively display content that is created entirely by third parties, but not an interactive computer service provider that acts as an information content provider by creating or developing the content at issue, including content created entirely by individuals or entities other than the interactive computer service provider.
Lastly, regarding the third requirement, the Court stressed that Facebook contented that SFJ Title II claim arose from the platform’s decision to block access to or, in other words, to refuse to publish the SFJ Page in India, which Facebook asserted was publisher conduct immunized by the CDA. Although SFJ failed to respond to this argument, the Court examined the organization’s claim to determine whether it was appropriate to apply for the CDA’s protection from liability since, as previously decided in the case of Barnes v. Yahoo!, CDA immunity is an affirmative defense. To determine whether a plaintiff’s theory of liability treats a defendant as a publisher, the Court recalled that, as defined in the case of Barnes v. Yahoo! what matters was not the name of the cause of action but rather whether it inherently required the Court to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another. Thus, the Court proceeded to analyze whether the duty SJF alleged Facebook violated derived from the platform’s status or conduct as a publisher. The Court explained that the act of publication involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw third-party publications. [p.9] Therefore, any activity that could be boiled down to determining whether to exclude material that a third party sought to post online was necessarily immune under Section 230.
In the immediate case, the Court noted that SFJ’s Title II claim alleged that Facebook had engaged in “blatant discriminatory conduct” by blocking its content in India. Also, SFJ held that Facebook had denied it full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations on the social media site by removing the SFJ Page in India based on the organization’s members’ race, religion, ancestry, and national origin. However, the Court underscored that the act that Facebook allegedly conducted in a discriminatory manner was the removal of the SFJ Page in India. Thus, the Court concluded that removing content was something publishers do and that imposing liability based on such conduct would necessarily require treating the liable party as a publisher.
Additionally, the Court stressed that while SFJ held that it simply sought an explanation for why Facebook blocked the SFJ Page in India, the organization failed to cite the authority requiring such relief. Consequently, the Court concluded that granting leave to amend would be futile because SFJ claims were barred as a matter of law. Moreover, the Court emphasized that, as held in the case of Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, the CDA “must be interpreted to protect websites not merely from ultimate liability, but from having to fight costly and protracted legal battles.” [p. 11] Thus, the Court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss SJF Title II claim with prejudice.
The Court then proceeded to analyze SFJ State Law Claims Based on the Title II claim. It first recalled that SFJ invoked the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims. However, the Court noted that by dismissing Plaintiff’s Title II claim, the Court dismissed the only claim over which it exercised original jurisdiction. Specifically, it highlighted that the balance of factors in the immediate case pointed in favor of also dismissing the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims since the case had yet to proceed beyond the pleadings, and no discovery had been conducted. Hence, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over SFJ state law claims and granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss SJF’s state law claims without prejudice. As a result of the lack of merits, Court denied as moot Facebook’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike and for attorney’s fees and costs.
Considering the preceding, the Court granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss SJF Title II claim with prejudice and the plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. More, the Court denied as moot Facebook’s motion to strike and for attorney’s fees and costs.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
By holding that Facebook was not a content developer and thus granting the platform immunity under Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, the Court’s decision complied with the relevant precedents regarding the statute’s scope. However, in light of the international human rights standards on freedom of expression, this decision contracts expression by allowing Facebook to refuse to publish and moderate content solely because of a contractual relationship between the parties. Moreover, by considering the act that Facebook allegedly conducted in a discriminatory manner was the removal of the plaintiff’s Facebook page in India, the Court deemed that such action was something publishers do and thus refrained from opining on the extent of the impact of such conduct for the SJF. This decision underscores the perils of protecting the contractual relationship between the users and the social media platforms to the detriment of a possible infringement of human rights standards.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.