Laura Loomer Owes $124k In Legal Fees After Losing Lawsuit Over Having Her Twitter Account Reported And Banned

from the $124,000-more-expensive-than-just-letting-the-ban-ride dept

Alt-right "personality" (I guess?) Laura Loomer keeps filing lawsuits and losing them. Loomer seems to believe it's legally actionable to be moderated by social media services. No court has agreed with her. Between Section 230 and the First Amendment, Loomer doesn't have a case. Oblique approaches -- like claiming getting kicked off Twitter is tortious interference in a (nonexistent) business relationship (Loomer and Twitter, according to Loomer, but definitely not according to Twitter) -- haven't been any more successful.

Grasping at straws and switching attorneys in midstream hasn't helped matters. This case involved Loomer trying to sue CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relationships) and Twitter in Florida, claiming CAIR's reporting of her Twitter account tortiously interfered with Loomer's get-rich-quick plan of being extremely extremist online. It only took six pages for a federal judge to dismiss Loomer's baseless claims.

By the time that dismissal happened, it was too late for Loomer. Seven months after the lawsuit was filed (in October 2019), CAIR approached Loomer and suggested a settlement under Florida state law -- one that would have been much cheaper for Loomer. Loomer refused. That has turned out to be a very expensive decision. (h/t Techdirt reader Thad)

The court [PDF] says the offer of judgment complied with Florida law and could have provided Loomer a quicker, cheaper way to step away from her doomed litigation. Loomer argued the offer wasn't proper because she was seeking injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages. A judgment offer would obviously have short-circuited injunctive relief. But the court points out Loomer only mentioned an injunction in the complaint and never bothered to follow up on seeking this particular form of relief.

I find that the true relief sought against the CAIR Defendants in the Amended Complaint was only monetary damages and that the Amended Complaint makes only a “passing reference” to equitable relief. The only equitable relief directly mentioned in Plaintiffs’ complaint is a summary request for “preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent defendants from continuing their unlawful conduct.” ECF No. 1-2, at 41. During the 8 1/2 month period between the filing of the Amended Complaint (March 3, 2019) and the District Court’s dismissal order (November 19, 2019), Plaintiffs never filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. This evidence circumstantially shows that Plaintiffs were not actually pursuing equitable relief. And, in addition to Plaintiffs not seeking an injunction, the Amended Complaint is framed in terms of monetary damage; it repeatedly and exclusively alleges economic harm to Plaintiffs “in an amount to be proved at trial.”

Monetary it is! But not the way Loomer hoped. After doing some back-of-the-filing-envelope math bringing hourly rates down from their DC levels (where CAIR is HQed) to Florida levels (where the lawsuit was originally filed), the court has some bad news for a plaintiff who arguably doesn't have enough cash on hand to buy new tires.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall reimburse Defendants:

Attorneys’ Fees: $123,761.65 allocated as follows:

CAIR Foundation, Inc. $117,297.90

CAIR Florida, Inc. $6,463.75

Costs: $661.72

That's how much being this wrong costs someone who's so sure they're right they blow off a cheaper offer made months before the attorneys' fees really started racking up. I don't know how many people are still interested in Loomers' windmill tilts, but I have to imagine an eighth of a million puts a pretty good dent in her legal warchest.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: content moderation, fees, florida, laura loomer, legal fees
Companies: cair, twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 11 Aug 2021 @ 9:04am

    Allow me to play the world’s smallest violin…

    If it weren’t for Loomer’s over-9000 Dunning-Kruger, she’d be a lot less in the red by now. Pride comets before the fall, methinks.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2021 @ 9:57am

    Love the way the "Gimme munny" web pages haven't been updated since late Feb - just before the supreme court declined to hear the case.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Aug 2021 @ 12:03pm

    Way to blow your own argument out of the water

    Plaintiffs never filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. This evidence circumstantially shows that Plaintiffs were not actually pursuing equitable relief. And, in addition to Plaintiffs not seeking an injunction, the Amended Complaint is framed in terms of monetary damage; it repeatedly and exclusively alleges economic harm to Plaintiffs “in an amount to be proved at trial.

    Talk about exposing the greed underlying the whole thing, claims that this is about forcing social media showing her the door to restore her account so she can go back to ranting but the only thing she argued in court was that she wanted money. Nice to see that blow up in her face like that, even better to see it actually cost her something because the only thing liars like that will pay attention to is having to pay for their stupidity.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Mononymous Tim (profile), 11 Aug 2021 @ 12:36pm

    Ok Loomer

    Has it sunk in yet?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Aug 2021 @ 3:23pm

    Loomer, probably: “Oh no, consequences⁠—the one thing I didn’t expect my actions to have!”

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Pixelation, 11 Aug 2021 @ 5:46pm

    Re:

    Or, she didn't want to be outdone by the likes of Carreon, et al...

    It is an expensive brand of stupid.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 11 Aug 2021 @ 7:48pm

    'I was supposed to profit from this, not pay!'

    'That's not fair, consequences are for other people, not me!'

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Chris Brand, 13 Aug 2021 @ 9:54am

    She fell for a prank?

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.