Court Dropkicks Trump Twitter LOLsuit For THAT’S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS

The first of Donald Trumps tech LOLsuits ran aground on Friday afternoon when US District Judge James Donato tossed the former presidents complaint against Twitter for tortious deplatforming.

Last July, Trump waltzed into federal court in Florida and paid the clerk $402 to file a fundraising ploy cum lawsuit alleging that Twitter violated his First Amendment rights by deleting his account in 2020 the day after the Capitol Riot. The theory was that Twitter became an agent of the government because Rep. Adam Schiff said COVID misinformation is bad, and the platform cracked down on COVID misinformation. Ipso facto propter hoc Twitter became the government, Jack Dorsey was acting as president, and we are now living in the Parag Agrawal administration. (Dear God, its almost time for President Musk!)

Then Trump and his team of legal eagles, led by John Coale, a retired tort lawyer married to Greta van Susteren, plus a handful of guys from a personal injury and real estate firm in Connecticut and local counsel hailing from a commercial litigation firm in Coral Gables, plunked down another $804 to sue Facebook and YouTube on exactly the same batcrap theory.

The problem, aside from the fact that none of these cases had any nexus to Florida, was that the tech platforms terms of service (TOS) all specify that any litigation will take place in California using California law, resulting in them getting yeeted out of Florida post haste. It also doomed Trumps attempt to recover under the Sunshine States consumer protection statute, according to Judge Donatos ruling.

But the case was probably DOA anyway, resting as it did on the bizarre argument that Twitter was acting as an agent of the federal government when it booted Trump off its platform. Never mind that it happened immediately after he justified the Capitol Riot as things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long, and told the rioters that he loved them and they were very special

Or as the court put it, Plaintiffs are not starting from a position of strength.

Nor are they starting from a position of procedural competency re 12(b)(6) motions. Who knew that Twiqbals requirement that the facts alleged must be actually plausible applies to all federal civil cases?

Plaintiffs make the odd assertion that these pleading standards apply only in antitrust conspiracy actions. Dkt. No. 145 at 6 n.7. Twombly and Iqbal expressed no such limitation, and their standards have been applied to a myriad of Rule 12(b)(6) motions in non-antitrust actions in every federal district and circuit court. A scant minute of online research makes this abundantly clear.

OUCH.

Democratic lawmakers support reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes websites for third-party generated content. Trump pointed to this as proof that Twitter was functioning as a state actor when it booted him offline, on the theory that this language was somehow coercive. But the court deemed this not enough for pleading purposes, because, again, Twiqbal requires plausible factual allegations, not just the latest 4chan conspiracy theory.

The amended complaint merely offers a grab-bag of allegations to the effect that some Democratic members of Congress wanted Mr. Trump, and the views he espoused, to be banned from Twitter because such content and views were contrary to those legislators preferred points of view. See, e.g., AC 53, 55, 60, 61. But the comments of a handful of elected officials are a far cry from a rule of decision for which the State is responsible. Legislators are perfectly free to express opinions without being deemed the official voice of the State.

Republican lawmakers have clamored for outright repeal of the law, and Trump himself vetoed the 2020 defense budget because it did not axe Section 230 in its entirety. And not for nothing, but this dumb lawsuit literally asked the court to declare Section 230 unconstitutional.

Also the court was singularly unimpressed with the precedents cited to support the claim that companies become government agents if they do something a member of congress happens to like.

These cases, which are the centerpieces of plaintiffs state action argument, are strikingly different from the allegations in the amended complaint, Judge Donato noted dryly.

But other than that, youre doing great, sweetie!

Twitters TOS, which Trump agreed to, requires that all suits be litigated under California law. This wiped out not just the Florida consumer protection count, but also the claim under the states Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which was anyway already enjoined for being a hilariously unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Having made short work of every one of Trumps preposterous claims, the court granted three weeks to amend the complaint, but with the caveat that no further f*ckery will be tolerated: The amended complaint may not add any new claims or defendants without express prior leave of Court. Plaintiffs are advised that further opportunities to amend are not likely to be granted.

One Trump tech LOLsuit down, two to go.

Trump v. Twitter [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.