The Informed Consent Action Network and Del Bigtree v. Youtube LLC, Meta Platforms Inc.
Published: Nov. 4, 2022 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 2022 | Filing Date: Dec. 30, 2020 |Case number: 4:20-cv-09456-JST Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Aaron Siri
(Siri & Glimstad LLP)
Elizabeth A. Brehm
(Siri & Glimstad LLP)
Sam M. Muriella
(Law Office of Sam M. Muriella)
Defendant
Sonal N. Mehta
(WilmerHale LLP)
Lauren Gallo White
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC)
Facts
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook and YouTube adopted policies that purport to combat misinformation about the coronavirus. YouTube adopted a policy that did not permit content that spread purported medical misinformation that contradicted local health authorities' or the World Health Organization's medical information about COVID-19. Similarly, Facebook implemented a policy of removing content that leading global health organizations and local health authorities flagged as contrary to their official statements about COVID-19.
Informed Consent Action Network is a Texas-based non-profit entity founded in 2016 that purports to be dedicated to criticizing governmental positions on health-related issues. As part of its activities, ICAN produced "The HighWire with Del Bigtree," which is an internet-based talk show, that ICAN posted to its accounts on Facebook and YouTube.
On July 3, 2020, YouTube removed a video of a doctor discussing hydroxychloroquine that ICAN posted on its channel, and over the following weeks, YouTube removed seven additional videos from ICAN's channel. YouTube terminated ICAN's account on July 29, 2020. Similarly, Facebook removed a video uploaded by ICAN on July 7, 2020, and then several more videos. ICAN's HighWire Facebook page was terminated on November 21, 2020.
ICAN subsequently filed suit against YouTube and Facebook.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the defendants violated its First Amendment rights by restricting its ability to post information on their platforms.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability. Defendants further contended that they were not state actors, so they could not violate the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The defendants further contended that they had a First Amendment right to make editorial decisions about the content included on their platforms.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice thereafter.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390