Guy Sues Facebook For Violating Basically All The Laws, For Shutting Down His Account And For Everything Else Bad Facebook Has Ever Done
from the not-how-it-works dept
"This case is likely one of the first filed in this Court that addresses the relationship between the First Amendment and the Internet-based [Facebook] communications platform" claims a new lawsuit filed against Facebook by a guy very angry that his account got shut down (case first spotted by John Roddy). Suffice it to say that this is not one of the first such lawsuits. Many have been filed, and literally every single one of them has failed. Facebook is not bound by the First Amendment. Courts are clear on this. Over and over and over again, courts have been clear on this. But this lack of understanding of what's come before is just the first of many fun things in this 174 page pro se lawsuit. The complaint is so long that only the first 91 pages were filed as the official complaint, and the rest were put in the docket as an "attachment."
The complaint is... something. It goes on and on about every historical Facebook scandal, going back nearly a decade, talking about the FTC consent decree, Cambridge Analytica, privacy questions, Elizabeth Warren's proposed plan to break the company up, before finally getting around to the reason he's actually suing. His account got shut down.
Contrary to FB' s purported mission to connect the entire world, FB blocked Plaintiffs business and personal accounts and by so doing violated Zimmerman's First Amendment right to publish his non-violent, pro-democracy, political views on FB's platform and market his political and non-political books on FB's platform, and in so doing knowingly, recklessly and unlawfully violated Zimmerman's free speech rights and his constitutionally-protected right to participate in free and fair elections as well as his Fourth Amendment privacy rights by willfully allowing third-parties to access his FB user information without seeking Plaintiffs authorization and without his knowledge.
That's in paragraph 77 after many dozens of paragraphs about stuff having nothing to do with the plaintiff, Robert Zimmerman. All the way back in paragraph 38, Zimmerman sets up what appears to be his argument: that in granting him "unfettered" access to its platform, Facebook can never then revoke said access:
FB violated Plaintiff Zimmerman's First Amendment rights by first granting him and his publishing company unfettered access to the FB platform and then unlawfully revoking that access causing Plaintiffs severe economic harm and other injuries.
Because someone will ask, Zimmerman, who describes himself as an author of "three political books" and "a grassroots Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate," is not alleging anti-conservative bias, because he's at the other end of the traditional political spectrum. He's just claiming that Facebook can't delete his account, and doing so apparently violates more or less all the laws (Randomly, in his description of the parties, Zimmerman tells the court that he was once arrested for trespassing while distributing copies of the U.S. Constitution. It is not clear why anyone, let alone the court, needs to know this).
He then claims that Facebook "aids and abets" election rigging, terrorist activity, organized immigration crime, slavery trafficking, extreme and revenge pornography, incitement of violence, hate crime, harassment, intimidation, bullying, trolling, cyberstalking, sale of illegal goods and services (such as drugs and assault weapons), content unlawfully uploaded to and from prisons, sexting and distributing indecent or sexual images of children under the age of 18, children accessing pornography, children under 13 using dating applications, child sexual exploitation and abuse by pedophiles, distribution of enemy and adversary propaganda and disinformation, advocacy of self-harm, female genital mutilation, and suicide. Oh, and they shut down his account.
Also, the US government is partly to blame (though not a party to the lawsuit):
The U.S. government, much like it did when it failed to assert the dangers of smoking, has entirely failed to take the actions necessary to protect Americans from an unregulated FB.
He also accuses the company of being too big. But, given the above list, that seems like the least of the problems. It's basically a review of the literature of every news article or book that has criticized Facebook ever. Somehow, this is all relevant to Facebook shutting down Mr. Zimmerman's account. A few pages are taken up by reprinting the 2012 FTC consent decree with Facebook (a consent decree now superseded by the more recent one). There's an entire section arguing that Facebook helped sabotage the 2016 election (apparently this is the opposite argument for anti-conservative bias). He implies some sort of conspiracy between Russia and Facebook, which is a new one, even suggesting that perhaps Zuckerberg is a Russian asset who was possibly "compromised before he dropped out of college or shortly thereafter." Really.
At times it's unclear if Zimmerman is suing Facebook for ever letting him have an account... or for shutting down his account that he seems angry he had. I mean, considering the crux of the lawsuit is over Facebook shutting down his account, how is this relevant?
Zimmerman could not have been reasonably expected to know that FB's stored user' information could be plundered, aggregated, targeted and then used for improper and illegal purposes, including the sabotage of the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.
Eventually, on page 110, we finally, finally get to causes of actions. And, it's basically that Facebook violated all the laws. First there's a CFAA claim. Then an unjust enrichment claim. A "violation of Constitutional rights" claim (by which he means the 1st Amendment, even though Facebook is not a state actor).
A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have unfettered access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. A basic rule is that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights.
Yeah, but that's because streets and parks are public spaces, controlled by the government. Facebook is not. As has been established in multiple lawsuits, despite Zimmerman's repeated insistence that "this case is likely one of the first filed in this Court that addresses the relationship between the First Amendment and the Internet-based FB communications platform." Also, he makes a 4th Amendment claim, citing Packingham, which he mistakenly calls Puckingham. But Packingham is not about the 4th Amendment at all. He at least tries to argue that Facebook is a "quasi-state actor" but comes nowhere close to satisfying that standard (as detailed in multiple cases, you need to show that the private party is handling duties normally performed exclusively by the state). This is not that:
FB is also a quasi-state actor because it wields potent monopolistic and political powers and is currently getting ready to launch its own international currency.
[...]
FB Defendants are quasi-state actors because they regulate and control the FB platform that served Plaintiffs and at least a billion other FB users' as a public and private communications platform.
He does allege "discrimination" and "bias" but... apparently it's just discrimination against Zimmerman himself.
FB Defendants discriminated against Zimmerman by blocking his unfettered access to his FB accounts for no expressed substantive reason, thus unlawfully censoring Plaintiff's political messaging, disallowing Zimmerman's communications with his thousands ofFB "Friends," thus denying Zimmerman his right to express and promote his political and non-political ideas and to otherwise advertise and market his political and non-political books and to his FB "Friends" and others.
Back to the claims in the lawsuit: after the "constitutional" stuff, there's a "breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Then invasion of privacy. Civil conversion, because, why not? Negligence and gross negligence (covering all the bases). Negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation. Breach of contract. Willful infliction of emotional distress. Common civil law conspiracy. That one's interesting. He argues that Facebook conspired with the Trump campaign, Robert Mercer and Russian officials. Kinda funny at the same time Trump is claiming anti-Trump bias on Facebook, this guy is accusing them of conspiring to steal the election. More claims: "Deceit by concealment or omission." Fraud. Willful misrepresentation. And, eventually, on "count 15" we get Ken White's favorite: Civil Rico Conspiracy (It's Not Rico, Dammit). But he's not done yet. Violation of the Stored Communications Act/ECPA. That's it on the federal claims. He then repeats a bunch based on California state laws.
Look, I get being mad at Facebook over lots of stuff, and especially mad that your account got deleted. But, that doesn't give you anything to sue over. Still, if you really do want a slightly incoherent rant about everything bad Facebook has ever done, Zimmerman's got you covered. I expect this will get tossed out in short order.
Filed Under: free speech, pro se, robert zimmerman, section 230
Companies: facebook
