Meta Motion to Dismiss Privacy Case Follows Transfer Motion
Plaintiffs’ factual allegations “fall well short of pleading a plausible claim” under the First Amendment or Texas’ social media law HB 20, said Meta Monday in a reply in support of its motion to dismiss (docket 3:23-cv-00217) a freedom of speech suit in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. It also filed a reply Monday in support of its motion to transfer the case to California.
Two private Facebook groups, Wise Guys I and Wise Guys II, alleged in a January complaint the company engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” (see 2303210041. Meta argued in its motion to dismiss that despite the plaintiffs’ “eagerness” to sue over alleged restrictions Meta placed on the groups’ content, they refuse “to provide any detail whatsoever about the content at issue -- or about themselves, for that matter,” said the motion. “At no point does the complaint ever identify the posts or users in question,” Meta said then: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demand far more.”
Meta filed a motion to transfer the case in March, saying “not only does the complaint lack the facts necessary to allege a substantive claim or establish personal jurisdiction over a California company, but Wise Guys’ underlying legal theories -- including that they can use Texas’ novel social-media censorship law to control out-of-state conduct or that they can assert the First Amendment against a private entity -- are untenable as a matter of law.”
Texas district court “is not the right tribunal to address the complaint’s deficiencies,” said Meta’s March motion, saying plaintiffs, by identifying in the complaint as private Facebook groups, confirmed their claims are subject to Meta’s forum-selection clause that requires suit in the Northern District of California. Meta cited Prather v. Meta Platforms, in which the 352nd District Court in Texas dismissed a case against Meta with instructions to refile in California, Meta said.
Plaintiffs didn’t cite a single case where a court denied transfer under a forum-selection clause, said Meta Monday, in its reply in support of motion to transfer, saying instead, they offer a “red herring and two precedent-defying arguments.” Plaintiffs dispute the substantive constitutionality of Texas' Chapter 143A, which prohibits social media censorship based on the viewpoint of a user, but that’s irrelevant to the transfer question, Meta said.
Plaintiffs suggest the forum-selection clause isn’t valid or enforceable because it conflicts with Texas public policy, which Meta said is “twice-over wrong because Texas law overwhelmingly endorses forum-selection clauses and because the text of Chapter 143A confirms that result here.” Plaintiffs argue they can avoid transfer because Facebook’s terms of service are a contract of adhesion, “but precedent is firmly to the contrary,” Meta said.
In the Monday reply in support of its motion to dismiss, Meta said dismissal is required because plaintiffs refused to respond to almost all of its arguments, including viewpoint or geographic discrimination or discrimination under Chapter 143A or the First Amendment. Plaintiffs overlook Meta’s personal jurisdiction objection, “thus waiving the point,” and they’re “silent” on the other grounds for dismissal, including the Commerce Clause, the vagueness doctrine, the First Amendment, the Communications Decency Act and the state-actor requirement. It also cited the Bivens rule, which “leaves no room for Plaintiffs to proceed” without a congressionally ordained cause of action, it said.
The court doesn’t need to address any of plaintiffs’ claims because they sued in violation of a “mandatory” forum-selection clause, meaning that transfer is required as a threshold matter, Meta said. “All that is currently before the Court is the preliminary question of which court should decide the merits -- not how that court should ultimately rule,” it said. The court should dismiss the complaint with prejudice “if it reaches any issue beyond Meta’s threshold motion to transfer,” said the filing.