Facts

Colleen Huber tweeted a quote from an Israeli news article over Twitter to her 19,000 followers regarding COVID-19 vaccine death rates. She was permanently suspended from her Twitter account for the tweet and unable to appeal the suspension. Twitter notified her that they banned her based on its policy against potentially harmful COVID-19 information. As part of Twitter's terms of service, the company may suspend or terminate a user's account for any or no reason, including if they determine that user has violated their rules. Huber individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated brought a civil rights class action lawsuit against President Joseph Biden and Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO, alleging that defendants deprived her and others of their fundamental First and Fifth Amendment rights. Huber sought declaratory and injunctive relief declaring Twitter's practices unconstitutional, enjoining Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and preventing defendants from unlawfully suspending her and others from Twitter. Plaintiff also sought nominal and compensatory damages.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that President Biden and others in his administration engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment by conspiring with Twitter. Plaintiff maintained that the fact that Twitter only banned accounts posting COVID-19 information that was contrary to President Biden's agenda suggests constitutionally invalid viewpoint discrimination. Plaintiff further alleged that the enforcement of Twitter's COVID-19 banning policy was in furtherance of a conspiracy between defendants to silence plaintiff and others who engage in speech that defendants disagree. Moreover, Plaintiff maintained that defendants mutually benefited from the conspiracy to suppress the speech and that the two parties were in direct engagement with each other to violate her rights. Plaintiff also claimed that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment because it permitted defendants to engage in government-sanctioned discrimination and suppression of free speech. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated her Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by granting use of an online forum to people whose opinions they find acceptable but denying its use to those expressing less favorable views.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.