Clayborn et al v. Twitter, Inc. et al
Filing
1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-11920037.). Filed byThe Estate of Tin Nguyen, Kim Clayborn, Trung Do, James Thalasinos, The Estate of Sierra Clayborn, Jacob Thalasinos, Gregory Clayborn, Tamishia Clayborn, Vanessa Nguyen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Altman, Keith) (Filed on 12/1/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
Keith L. Altman, SBN 257309
(Of Counsel)
26700 Lahser Road., Suite 401
Southfield, MI. 48033
Telephone: (516) 456-5885
kaltman@lawampmmt.com
6
11
LAW OFFICE OF THEIDA SALAZAR
Theida Salazar, SBN 295547
2140 N Hollywood Way
#7192
Burbank, CA 91510
Telephone: (818)433-7290
salazarlawgroup@gmail.com
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7
8
9
10
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
GREGORY CLAYBORN,
Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest of the
Estate of SIERRA
CLAYBORN, KIM
CLAYBORN, TAMISHIA
CLAYBORN; and
VANESSA NGUYEN,
Individually and as
Successor-In-Interest of the
Estate of TIN NGUYEN,
TRUNG DO; and
JACOB THALASINOS,
JAMES THALASINOS;
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FOR:
1. LIABILITY
FOR
AIDING
AND
ABETTING
ACTS
OF
INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and
(d)
2. LIABILITY FOR CONSPIRING IN
FURTHERANCE
OF
ACTS
OF
INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and
(d)
27
28
Plaintiffs,
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
1
1
3. PROVISION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT
TO TERRORISTS IN VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. § 2339a AND 18 U.S.C. § 2333
v.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TWITTER, INC., GOOGLE,
INC., and FACEBOOK, INC.
Defendants.
4. PROVISION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT
AND RESOURCES TO A DESIGNATED
FOREIGN
TERRORIST
ORGANIZATION IN VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) AND 18 U.S.C. §
2333(a)
9
10
11
5. NEGLIGENT
INFLICTION
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
OF
12
13
6. WRONGFUL DEATH
14
15
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
2
1
COMPLAINT
2
3
NOW COME Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, and allege the following
4
against Defendants Twitter, Inc., Google, Inc., Facebook, Inc. (“Defendants”):
5
6
7
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for damages against Google pursuant to the Antiterrorism Act,
8
9
10
11
18 U.S.C. § 2333 (“ATA”), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), Pub. L. No. 114-222 (2016), for aiding, abetting, and
knowingly providing support and resources to ISIS, the notorious designated
12
13
foreign terrorist organization that carried out including the December 2, 2015,
14
attack in San Bernadino where 22 were seriously injured and 14 were killed,
15
16
17
18
including Sierra Clayborn, Tin Nguyen, and Nicholas Thalasinos.
2. The ATA’s civil remedies have served as an important means for enforcing the
federal criminal anti-terrorism provisions since the early 1990s.
19
20
21
3. Congress enacted the ATA in October 1992 as a legal complement to criminal
penalties against terrorists that kill or injure Americans abroad, specifically
22
intending that the civil provisions would not only provide a mechanism for
23
24
25
compensating victims of terror but also serve as an important means of depriving
terrorists of financial resources to carry out attacks.
26
27
4. Following the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York by al-Qaeda in
28
1993, Congress targeted terrorist resources again by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 2339A
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
3
1
2
in September 1994, making it a crime to provide material support or resources
knowing or intending that they will be used in preparing or carrying out terrorist
3
4
5
acts.
5. In April 1996, Congress further expanded the effort to cut off resources to
6
terrorists by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, making it a crime to knowingly provide
7
8
9
material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
6. In the wake of the terror attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda of September
10
11
11, 2001 killing nearly 3,000 Americans, Congress amended the “material
12
support” statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A-B, via the PATRIOT Act in October 2001
13
and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, to impose
14
15
greater criminal penalties for violating these statutes and to expand the definition
16
of “material support or resources” prohibited thereby.
17
18
19
7. In September 2016, Congress amended the ATA’s civil provisions to recognize
causes of action for aiding and abetting and conspiring with foreign terrorist
20
organizations who plan, prepare, or carry out acts of international terrorism. The
21
22
23
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), Public Law No: 114-222
(09/28/2016) states in relevant part:
24
25
26
27
28
Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the
broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United
States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries,
wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided
material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or
persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
4
(JASTA 2(b))
1
2
3
8. The terror attacks in this case were carried out by ISIS, a terrorist organization
4
for years closely affiliated with al-Qaeda, but from which al-Qaeda separated as
5
6
7
being too brutal and extreme.
9. Known at various times as “The al-Zarqawi Network,” “al-Qaida in Iraq,” “The
8
9
10
11
Islamic State in Iraq,” “ISIL,” and other official and unofficial names, ISIS has
been a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (“FTO”) under Section 219 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1189 (“INI”), since October
12
13
14
2004.
10.By the time of the terror attacks in this case, ISIS had become one of the largest
15
16
17
18
and most widely-recognized and feared terrorist organizations in the world.
11.The expansion and success of ISIS is in large part due to its use of the Defendants’
social media platforms to promote and carry out its terrorist activities.
19
20
21
12. For years, Defendants have knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist group
ISIS with accounts to use its social networks as a tool for spreading extremist
22
propaganda, raising funds, and attracting new recruits. This material support
23
24
25
has been instrumental to the rise of ISIS and has enabled it to carry out or
cause to be carried out, numerous terrorist attacks, including December 2, 2015,
26
27
attack in San Bernadino where 22 were seriously injured and 14 were killed,
28
including Sierra Clayborn, Tin Nguyen, and Nicholas Thalasinos. Defendants are
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
5
1
2
information content providers because they create unique content by combining
ISIS postings with advertisements in a way that is specifically targeted at the
3
4
5
viewer. Defendants share revenue with ISIS for its content and profit from ISIS
postings through advertising revenue.
6
13. Without Defendants Twitter, Facebook, and Google (YouTube), the explosive
7
8
9
growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the
world would not have been possible. According to the Brookings Institution,
10
11
ISIS “has exploited social media, most notoriously Twitter, to send its propaganda
12
and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to
13
radicalization.”1 Using Defendants’ sites, “ISIS has been able to exert an
14
15
16
outsized impact on how the world perceives it, by disseminating images of
graphic violence (including the beheading of Western journalists and aid
17
18
19
workers) . . . while using social media to attract new recruits and inspire lone
actor attacks.” According to FBI Director James Comey, ISIS has perfected
20
its use of Defendants’ sites to inspire small-scale individual attacks, “to
21
22
23
crowdsource terrorism” and “to sell murder.”
14. Since first appearing on Twitter in 2010, ISIS accounts on Twitter have grown at
24
25
26
an astonishing rate and, until recently, ISIS maintained official accounts on
Twitter unfettered. These official accounts included media outlets, regional hubs
27
28
1
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/11/09/how-terrorists-recruit-online-and-how-to-stop-it/
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
6
1
2
and well-known ISIS members, some with tens of thousands of followers. For
example, Al-Furqan, ISIS’s official media wing responsible for producing ISIS’s
3
4
5
multimedia propaganda, maintained a dedicated Twitter page where it posted
messages from ISIS leadership as well as videos and images of beheadings and
6
other brutal forms of executions to 19,000 followers.
7
8
9
15. Likewise, Al-Hayat Media Center, ISIS’s official public relations group,
maintained at least a half dozen accounts, emphasizing the recruitment of
10
11
Westerners. As of June 2014, Al-Hayat had nearly 20,000 followers.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Figure 1 Tweet by Al-Hayat Media Center Account @alhayaten
Promoting an ISIS Recruitment Video
23
24
25
16. Another Twitter account, @ISIS_Media_Hub, had 8,954 followers as of
September 2014.
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure 2 ISIS Propaganda Posted on @ISIS_Media_Hub
8
17. As of December 2014, ISIS had an estimated 70,000 Twitter accounts, at least 79
9
10
11
of which were “official,” and it posted at least 90 tweets every minute.
18. As with Twitter, ISIS has used Google (YouTube) and Facebook in a similar
12
13
14
manner.
19. Plaintiffs’ claims are based not upon the content of ISIS’ social media postings,
15
but upon Defendants provision of the infrastructure which provides material
16
17
18
support to ISIS. Furthermore, Defendants profit from ISIS by placing ads on ISIS’
postings. For at least one of the Defendants, Google, revenue earned from
19
20
21
22
advertising is shared with ISIS. Lastly, Defendants incorporate ISIS’ postings to
create unique content by combining the ISIS postings with advertisements
selected by Defendants based upon ISIS’ postings and the viewer looking at the
23
24
25
postings and the advertisements.
PARTIES
26
27
20. Plaintiff Gregory Clayborn is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the State
28
of California and is the father of Sierra Clayborn. He brings this lawsuit on behalf
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
8
1
2
of himself and as a successor-in-interest of the estate of his daughter Sierra
Clayborn, a U.S. citizen and domiciliary of California at the time of her death.
3
4
5
21. Plaintiff Kim Clayborn is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the State of
California and is the step-mother of Sierra Clayborn.
6
22. Plaintiff Tamishia Clayborn is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the State
7
8
9
of California and is the sister of Sierra Clayborn.
23. Plaintiff Vanessa Nguyen is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the State
10
11
of California and is the mother of Tin Nguyen. She brings this lawsuit on behalf
12
of herself and as a successor-in-interest of the estate of her daughter Tin Nguyen,
13
a U.S. citizen and domiciliary of California at the time of her death.
14
15
16
24. Plaintiff Trung Do is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the State of
California and is the brother of Tin Nguyen.
17
18
19
25. Plaintiff Jacob Thalasinos is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the State
of California and is the son of Nicholas Thalasinos.
20
26. Plaintiff James Thalasinos is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the state
21
22
23
of California and is the son of Nicholas Thalasinos.
27. Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) is a publicly traded U.S. company
24
25
26
27
incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1355 Market
Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California 94103.
28. Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) is a publicly traded U.S company
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
9
1
2
incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1601 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025.
3
4
5
29. Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) is a publicly traded U.S company incorporated
in Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
6
Mountain View, California, 94043. Google owns the social media site YouTube.
7
8
9
For the purposes of this complaint, Google and YouTube are used
interchangeably.
10
11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12
30. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
13
14
§1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) as a civil action brought by a citizen of the United
15
States injured by reason of an act of international terrorism and the estate,
16
17
18
survivor, or heir of a United States citizen injured by reason of an act of
international terrorism.
19
31. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 18 U.S.C. §
20
21
22
2334(a) because at least one of the Plaintiffs and/or decedents was a resident of
the Central District of California, Western District and Defendants conduct
23
24
25
26
significant business operations in the state of California and within the Central
District of California.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
10
LEGAL BACKGROUND: ANTITERRORISM LEGISLATION
1
2
A.
The Antiterrorism Act (“ATA”)
3
4
32. In the 1980’s, terrorist groups carried out a number of major terror attacks around
5
the world, killing and injuring many Americans abroad.
6
33. Among these terror attacks were:
7
8
a.
9
The April 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing
63 people, including 17 Americans;
10
11
b.
12
The October 1983 suicide bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon,
killing 241 U.S. Marines and injuring more than 100;
13
c.
The December 1983 terrorist bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the residential
14
quarters of American company Raytheon in Kuwait;
15
16
d.
The September 1984 terrorist bombing of a U.S. Embassy annex northeast of
17
Beirut, Lebanon;
18
e.
The June 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847;
f.
19
The October 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murder of
20
21
wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer; and
22
23
g.
The December 1985 terrorist bombings of the Rome and Vienna airports.
24
25
26
27
34. In response to these attacks, Congress in 1986 amended the U.S. Criminal Code,
Title 18, Part I, to add a new chapter titled, “Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over
Terrorist Acts Abroad Against United States Nationals.”
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
11
1
2
35. This new chapter contained a new section titled, “Terrorist acts abroad against
United States nationals,” providing criminal penalties for killing, conspiring, or
3
4
5
attempting to kill a national of the United States, or engaging in physical violence
with the intent to cause serious bodily injury to a national of the United States or
6
that results in serious bodily injury to a national of the United States.
7
8
9
36. In addition, Congress later enacted the ATA, which established a private cause of
action for U.S. nationals injured by acts of international terrorism, as a legal
10
11
complement to the criminal penalties against terrorists that kill or injure Americans
12
abroad.
13
37. In enacting the ATA, Congress specifically intended that the civil cause of action
14
15
would not only provide a mechanism for compensating victims of terror, but also
16
serve as an important means of depriving terrorists of financial resources to carry
17
18
19
out attacks.
38. As the ATA was being considered in Congress, the State Department’s Deputy
20
Legal Advisor, Alan J. Kreczko, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
21
22
23
Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice that this proposed bill “will
add to the arsenal of legal tools that can be used against those who commit acts of
24
25
terrorism against United States citizens abroad.” 2
26
27
“Statement of Alan J. Kreczko, Deputy Legal Adviser, On S. 2465: A bill to provide a new
civil cause of action in federal court for terrorist acts abroad against United States nationals,” Before
2
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
39. The Deputy Legal Advisor also testified:
“[T]his bill will provide general jurisdiction to our federal courts and a cause of
action for cases in which an American has been injured by an act of terrorism
overseas.
We view this bill as a welcome addition to the growing web of law we are weaving
against terrorists. . . . The existence of such a cause of action . . . may deter terrorist
groups from maintaining assets in the United States, from benefiting from
investments in the U.S. and from soliciting funds within the U.S. In addition, other
countries may follow our lead and implement complimentary national measures,
thereby increasing obstacles to terrorist operations.
Moreover, the bill may be useful in situations in which the rules of evidence or
standards of proof preclude the U.S. government from effectively prosecuting a
criminal case in U.S. Courts. Because a different evidentiary standard is involved
in a civil suit, the bill may provide another vehicle for ensuring that terrorists do
not escape justice.”3
40. Likewise, Senator Grassley, one of the sponsors of the bill, explained a purpose of
15
16
17
18
19
20
ATA’s civil cause of action as follows:
“The United States must take a strong stand against terrorism. The Department of
State testified that this bill would add to the arsenal of legal tools that can be used
against those who commit acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens abroad.
...
Now is the time for action. Now is the time to strengthen our ability to both deter
and punish acts of terrorism.
21
22
We must make it clear that terrorists’ assets are not welcome in our country. And
if they are found, terrorists will be held accountable where it hurts them most: at
23
24
25
26
27
the Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice of the Senate Judiciary Committee (July 25,
1990), https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/28458.pdf.
3
28
Id.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
13
their lifeline, their funds.”4
1
2
41. In July 1992, a Senate Committee Report explained that the ATA’s treble damages
3
provision “would interrupt, or at least imperil, the flow of money” to terrorist
4
organizations.5
5
6
42. In October 1992, Congress enacted ATA’s civil provisions, including 18 U.S.C. §
7
2333.
8
9
B.
The “Material Support” Statutes and Regulations
10
11
43. On February 26, 1993, a group of al-Qaeda terrorists detonated a truck bomb under
12
the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, attempting to cause
13
the collapse of both towers and the death of thousands of Americans.
14
15
16
44. Although the damage from the World Trade Center bombing was limited, it
nevertheless killed six people and injured more than one thousand.
17
18
19
45. In response, Congress again took aim at the resources available to terrorists in
September 1994 and enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, making it a crime to provide
20
material support or resources to terrorists, knowing or intending that they would
21
22
be used for terrorist acts.
23
24
25
26
27
136 Cong. Rec. 26716-26717 (Oct. 1, 1990), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRECB
-1990-pt19/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1990-pt19-1.pdf.
4
5
28
S. Rep. No. 102-342 at 22 (1992).
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
14
1
2
46. In April 1996, Congress expanded the prohibition of providing material support or
resources to terrorists by enacting 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, making it a crime to
3
4
5
knowingly provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist
organization, without regard to how such support or resources will be used.
6
47. On the morning of September 11, 2001, several teams of al-Qaeda operatives
7
8
9
carried out terrorist hijackings of civilian aircraft in the United States with the
purpose of crashing them into various targets, causing enormous damage and mass
10
11
12
murder (the “9/11 Attacks”).
48. In the course of the 9/11 Attacks, al-Qaeda terrorists crashed two aircraft into the
13
World Trade Center towers, causing the fiery collapse of both towers, a third
14
15
aircraft was crashed into the U.S. military headquarters known as the Pentagon,
16
and a fourth aircraft was crashed into a field.
17
18
19
49. The 9/11 Attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000 others,
and caused more than $10 billion in damage to property.
20
50. On September 23, 2001, in response to the 9/11 Attacks, President George W. Bush
21
22
23
issued Executive Order No. 13224 pursuant to the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq. (“IEEPA”).
24
25
26
27
51. In Executive Order No. 13224, President Bush found that “grave acts of terrorism
and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists . . . and the continuing and
immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
15
constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign
1
2
policy, and economy of the United States,” and he declared a national emergency
3
to deal with such threats.
4
5
52. Executive Order No. 13224 legally blocked all property and interests in property
6
of “Specially Designated Global Terrorists” (“SDGTs”), prohibited the provision
7
of funds, goods, or services for the benefit of SDGTs, and authorized the U.S.
8
9
Treasury to block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support,
10
11
services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, SDGTs, as well as their
12
subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates.
13
53. Executive Order No. 13224’s prohibitions remain in effect.
14
15
54. Under the IEEPA, violation of Executive Order No. 13224 is a federal criminal
16
offense. See 50 U.S.C. § 1705.
17
18
55. In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, Congress passed the “PATRIOT Act” in October
2001 and the “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,” which
19
20
amended the “material support” statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A-B, to increase the
21
criminal penalties for violating these statutes and to expand the definition of
22
23
“material support or resources” prohibited thereby.
24
25
26
27
C.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”)
56. In September 2016, Congress enacted JASTA, which amended the ATA’s civil
provisions to recognize causes of action for aiding and abetting and conspiring with
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
16
1
2
foreign terrorist organizations who plan, prepare, or carry out acts of international
terrorism.
3
4
5
57. In enacting JASTA, Congress made a number of specific findings, including the
following:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
“Persons, entities, or countries that knowingly or recklessly contribute material
support or resources, directly or indirectly, to persons or organizations that pose a
significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten the security of
nationals of the United States or the national security, foreign policy, or economy
of the United States, necessarily direct their conduct at the United States, and
should reasonably anticipate being brought to court in the United States to answer
for such activities.” 6
58. Congress also specifically stated that the purpose of JASTA as follows:
13
14
15
16
17
“Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest
possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief
against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they
may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign
organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United
States.”7
18
19
20
59. ISIS, which stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is also known as
21
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (“ISIL”), the Islamic State (“IS”), ad-
22
Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām (“DAESH”) and al-Qaeda in Iraq
23
24
(“AQI”).
25
26
6
JASTA § 2(a)(6).
7
JASTA § 2(b).
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
17
1
2
60. Originally affiliated with al Qaeda, ISIS’s stated goal is the establishment of
a transnational Islamic caliphate, i.e. an Islamic state run under strict Sharia law.
3
4
5
By February 2014, however, ISIS’s tactics had become too extreme for even
al Qaeda and the two organizations separated.
6
61. Since its emergence in Iraq in the early 2000’s when it was known as AQI, ISIS
7
8
9
has wielded increasing territorial power, applying brutal, terrifying violence to
attain its military and political goals, including summary executions, mass
10
11
beheadings, amputations, shootings and crucifixions, which it applies to anyone
12
it considers an “unbeliever,” a “combatant” or a “prisoner of war.”
13
62. The United Nations and International NGOs have condemned ISIS for war
14
15
crimes and ethnic cleansing, and more than 60 countries are currently fighting to
16
defeat ISIS and prevent its expansion.
17
18
19
63. On December 17, 2004, the United States designated ISIS as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (“FTO”) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
20
as amended.
21
22
23
ISIS is Dependent on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook to Terrorize
ISIS Uses Defendants to Recruit New Terrorists
24
25
26
64. One of ISIS’s primary uses of Defendants’ sites is as a recruitment platform,
particularly to draw fighters from Western countries.
27
65. ISIS reaches potential recruits by maintaining accounts on Twitter, YouTube,
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
18
1
and Facebook so that individuals across the globe may reach out to them directly.
2
After the first contact, potential recruits and ISIS recruiters often communicate
3
via Defendants’ Direct Messaging capabilities. According to FBI Director James
4
5
Comey, “[o]ne of the challenges in facing this hydra-headed monster is that if
6
(ISIS) finds someone online, someone who might be willing to travel or kill
7
in place they will begin a Twitter direct messaging contact.” Indeed, according
8
to the Brookings Institution, some ISIS members “use Twitter purely for private
9
messaging or covert signaling.”
10
11
66. In addition to individual recruitment, ISIS members use Defendants to post
12
instructional guidelines and promotional videos referred to as “mujatweets.”
13
67. For example, in June 2014, ISIS fighters tweeted guidelines in English targeting
14
Westerners and instructing them on how to travel to the Middle East to join its
15
fight.
16
17
68. That same month, ISIS posted a recruitment video on various social media sites,
18
including Defendants. Although YouTube removed the video from its site, the
19
link remained available for download from Twitter. The video was further
20
promoted through retweets by accounts associated with ISIS.
21
69. ISIS also posted its notorious promotional training video, “Flames of War,”
22
23
narrated in English, in September 2014. The video was widely distributed on
24
Twitter through ISIS sympathizers. After joining ISIS, new recruits become
25
propaganda tools themselves, using Defendants to advertise their membership and
26
terrorist activities.
27
70. For example, in May 2013, a British citizen who publicly identified himself as
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
19
1
an ISIS supporter tweeted about his touchdown in Turkey before crossing the
2
border into Syria to join ISIS in the fight against the Syrian regime. And in
3
December 2013, the first Saudi Arabian female suicide bomber to join ISIS in
4
5
6
7
8
Syria tweeted her intent to become a martyr for the ISIS cause, as she embarked
for Syria.
71. As another example, two Tunisian girls, ages 19 and 21, were lured by ISIS’s use
of Facebook to travel to Syria believing they would be providing humanitarian
9
10
11
aid8. Instead, they were taken to an ISIS compound where there were forced to
serve as prostitutes and were repeatedly raped. The girls escaped during a
12
13
14
15
bombing of the compound and returned home.
72. Recently, it was reported that the leader of ISIS in the United Kingdom, Omar
Hussain, was using Facebook to recruit terrorists to launch attacks in the U.K. 9
16
17
18
73. After kidnapping and murdering Ruqia Hassan Mohammad, a female journalist
and activist, ISIS used her account to lure others into supporting ISIS10.
19
74. Through its use of Defendants’ sites, ISIS has recruited more than 30,000 foreign
20
21
recruits since 2013, including some 4,500 Westerners and 250 Americans.
ISIS Uses Defendants to Fund Terrorism
22
23
75. ISIS also uses Defendants to raise funds for its terrorist activities.
24
25
8
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/isis-recruits-american-teens
26
9
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-isis-leader-using-facebook-7545645?
27
10
28
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ruqia-hassan-mohammed-the-activist-and-citizenjournalist-that-isis-murdered-and-then-posed-as-for-a6798111.html
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
20
1
2
76. According to David Cohen, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Under Secretary
for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, “[y]ou see these appeals on Twitter in
3
4
5
particular from, you know, well-know[n] terrorist financiers . . . and they’re
quite explicit that these are to be made to ISIL for their military campaign.”
6
77. The Financial Action Task Force confirms that “individuals associated with ISIL
7
8
9
have called for donations via Twitter and have asked the donors to contact them.”
These tweets even promote “donation tiers.” One ISIS-linked cleric with the
10
11
Twitter account @Jahd_bmalk, for instance, sought donations for weapons with
12
the slogan “Participate in Jihad with your Money.” The account tweeted that “if
13
50 dinars is donated, equivalent to 50 sniper rounds, one will receive a ‘silver
14
15
status.’ Likewise, if 100 dinars is donated, which buys eight mortar rounds, the
16
contributor will earn the title of ‘gold status’ donor.” According to various tweets
17
18
from the account, over 26,000 Saudi Riyals (almost $7,000) were donated.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Figure 3 Fundraising Images from ISIS Twitter Accounts
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
21
1
78. A similar Twitter campaign in the spring of 2014 asked followers to “support
2
the Mujahideen with financial contribution via the following reliable accounts”
3
and provided contact information for how to make the requested donations.
4
5
6
7
In its other Twitter fundraising campaigns, ISIS has posted photographs of cash
gold bars and luxury cars that it received from donors, as well as weapons
purchased with the proceeds.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Figure 4 Donations to ISIS Publicized on Twitter
19
20
79. As discussed more fully below, YouTube approves of ISIS videos allowing for
21
ads to be placed with ISIS videos.
YouTube earns revenue from these
22
23
24
advertisements and shares a portion of the proceeds with ISIS.
80. Below is an example of a video posted by ISIS on YouTube with a member
25
speaking in French looking for Muslims to support ISIS’s cause online.
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Figure 5 Screenshot from ISIS Video Posted on June 17, 2015
10
11
ISIS Uses Defendants’ Sites to Spread Its Propaganda
12
81. ISIS also uses Defendants’ sites to spread propaganda and incite fear by
13
14
15
posting graphic photos and videos of its terrorist feats.
82. Through Defendants’ sites, ISIS disseminates its official media publications as
16
well as posts about real-time atrocities and threats to its perceived enemies.
17
18
19
83. In October 2013, ISIS posted a video of a prison break at the Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq, and its subsequent execution of Iraqi army officers.
20
21
22
23
84. In November 2013, an ISIS-affiliated user reported on Twitter that ISIS had killed
a man it mistakenly believed to be Shiite. Another post by an ISIS account
purported to depict Abu Dahr, identified as the “suicide bomber that attacked the
24
25
26
Iranian embassy.”
85. In December 2013, an ISIS-affiliated user tweeted pictures of what it described
27
28
as the killing of an Iraqi cameraman.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
23
1
2
86. In June 2014, ISIS tweeted a picture of an Iraqi police chief, sitting with his
severed head perched on his legs. The accompanying tweet read: “This is our
3
4
5
ball . . . it has skin on it.” ISIS then hashtagged the tweet with the handle
#WorldCup so that the image popped up on the feeds of millions following the
6
soccer challenge in Brazil.
7
8
9
87. On July 25, 2014, ISIS members tweeted photos of the beheading of around 75
Syrian soldiers who had been captured during the Syrian conflict.
10
11
12
88. In August 2014, an Australian member of ISIS tweeted a photo of his sevenyear- old son holding the decapitated head of a Syrian soldier.
13
89. Also in August 2014, ISIS member Abu Musaab Hafid al-Baghdadi posted
14
15
photos on his Twitter account showing an ISIS militant beheading a blindfolded
16
captured Lebanese Army Sergeant Ali al-Sayyed.
17
18
19
90. That same month, ISIS supporters tweeted over 14,000 tweets threatening
Americans under the hashtags #WaronWhites and #AMessagefromISIStoUS,
20
including posting gruesome photos of dead and seriously injured Allied soldiers.
21
22
23
Some of the photos depicted U.S. marines hung from bridges in Fallujah, human
heads on spikes and the twin towers in flames following the 9/11 attacks. Other
24
25
26
27
messages included direct threats to attack U.S. embassies around the world, and
to kill all Americans “wherever you are.”
91. Various ISIS accounts have also tweeted pictures and videos of the beheadings
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
24
1
2
of Americans James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig.
92. To keep its membership informed, in April 2014, ISIS created an Arabic-
3
4
5
language Twitter App called “The Dawn of Glad Tidings,” or “The Dawn,” which
posts tweets to thousands of users’ accounts, the content of which is controlled by
6
ISIS’s social media operation. The tweets include hashtags, links, and images
7
8
9
related to ISIS’s activities. By June 2014, the app reached a high of 40,000 tweets
in one day as ISIS captured Mosul, Iraq.
10
11
93. ISIS has also used Twitter to coordinate hashtag campaigns, whereby it enlists
12
thousands of members to repetitively tweet hashtags at certain times of the day so
13
that they trend on Twitter, meaning a wider number of users are exposed to the
14
15
tweets. One such campaign dubbed a “Twitter storm,” took place on June 8, 2014,
16
and led to a surge in followers.
17
18
19
94. In 2014, propaganda operatives from ISIS posted videos of photojournalist John
Cantile and other captors on both Twitter and YouTube 11. These operatives used
20
various techniques to ensure that ISIS’ posting was spread using Defendants’
21
22
23
sites. In her New York Times article, (Not “Lone Wolves” After All: How ISIS
Guides World’s Terror Plots From Afar-2/5/17), Rakmini Callimachi
24
25
26
acknowledges that because of Twitter and other social media, “In the most basic
enabled attacks Islamic State handlers acted as confidants and coaches, coaxing
27
28
11
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/24/isis-Twitter-youtube-message-social-media-jihadi
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
25
1
2
recruits to embrace violence. … Because the recruits are instructed to use
encrypted messaging applications, the guiding role played by the terrorist group
3
4
5
often remains obscured. As a result, remotely guided plots in Europe, Asia, and
the United States … were initially labeled the work of “lone wolves”, … and only
6
later discovered to have direct communications with the group discovered.”
7
8
9
Defendants Knowingly Permit ISIS to Use Their Social Network
The Use of Twitter by Terrorists Has Been Widely Reported
10
95. For years, the media has reported on the ISIS’s use of Defendants’ social media
11
12
13
sites and their refusal to take any meaningful action to stop it.
96. In December 2011, the New York Times reported that the terrorist group al-
14
15
Shabaab, “best known for chopping off hands and starving their own people, just
16
opened a Twitter account and have been writing up a storm, bragging about recent
17
attacks and taunting their enemies.”
18
19
97. That same month, terrorism experts cautioned that “Twitter terrorism” was part
20
of “an emerging trend” and that several branches of al Qaeda were using Twitter
21
to recruit individuals, fundraise and distribute propaganda more efficiently. New
22
York Times correspondent, Rukmini Callimachi, probably the most significant
23
24
reporter covering terrorism, acknowledges that social media and specifically
25
Twitter, allows her to “get inside the minds of ISIS”. Moreover, Callimachi
26
acknowledges, “Twitter is the main engine” in ISIS communication, messaging
27
and recruiting. “Al Qaeda (and now ISIS) have created a structure that was meant
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
26
1
to regenerate itself and no longer be dependent on just one person (bin Laden).
2
The Ideology is now a living, breathing thing, because of Twitter. You no longer
3
have to go to some closed dark-web forum to see their stuff.” Using Twitter, you
4
5
don’t need to even know the exact address to gain access to messages. “With
6
Twitter, you can guess; you look for certain words and you end up finding these
7
accounts. And then it’s kind of organic; You go to one account, then you go to
8
their followers and you follow all those people, and suddenly you’re in the know.
9
“ (Rukmini Callimachi, Wired.com, 8/3/16.)
10
11
98. On November 20, 2015, Business Insider reported that ISIS members have been
12
providing a 34-page guide to operational security and communications available
13
through multiple social medium platforms which delivers instructions to users
14
about communications methods including specifics in the use of Twitter, for
15
purposes of recruiting and radicalizing in the United States.Twitter
16
17
99. On October 14, 2013, the BBC issued a report on “The Sympatic,” “one of the
18
most important spokesmen of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on the social
19
contact website Twitter” who famously tweeted: “I swear by God that with us
20
there are mujahideen who are not more than 15 years old!! Where are the men of
21
the [Arabian] Peninsula? By God, shame on you.”
22
23
100. On October 31, 2013, Agence France-Presse reported on an ISIS video depicting
24
a prison break at Abu Ghraib and the execution of Iraqi army officers that was
25
“posted on jihadi forums and Twitter.”
26
101. On June 19, 2014, CNN reported on ISIS’s use of Twitter to raise money for
27
28
weapons, food, and operations. The next day, Seth Jones, Associate Director of
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
27
International Security and Defense Policy Center, stated in an interview on CNN
1
2
that Twitter was widely used by terrorist groups like ISIS to collect information,
3
fundraise and recruit. “Social media is where it’s at for these groups,” he added.
4
5
102. On August 21, 2014, after ISIS tweeted out the graphic video showing the
6
beheading of American James Foley, the Wall Street Journal warned that Twitter
7
could no longer afford to be the “Wild West” of social media.
8
9
103. In September 2014, Time Magazine quoted terrorism expert Rita Katz, who
10
observed that “[f]or several years, ISIS followers have been hijacking Twitter
11
to freely promote their jihad with very little to no interference at all. . . .
12
Twitter’s lack of action has resulted in a strong, and massive pro-ISIS presence
13
on their social media platform, consisting of campaigns to mobilize, recruit and
14
terrorize.”
15
16
The Use of Facebook by ISIS has been widely reported
17
104. On January 10, 2012, CBC News Released an article stating that Facebook is
18
being used by terrorist organizations for recruitment and to gather military and
19
political intelligence "Many users don't even bother finding out who they are
20
21
confirming as 'friend' and to whom they are providing access to a large amount of
22
23
information on their personal life. The terrorists themselves, in parallel, are able
24
to create false profiles that enable them to get into highly visible groups," he
25
said 12.
26
27
28
12
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/terrorist-groups-recruiting-through-social-media-1.1131053
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
28
1
2
105. On January 10, 2014, the Washington post released an article titled Why aren’t
YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter doing more to stop terrorists from inciting
3
4
5
violence? 13
106. In June 2014, the Washington times reported that Facebook is refusing to take
6
down a known ISIS terror group fan page that “has nearly 6,000 members and
7
8
adoringly quotes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, founder of al-Qaeda in Iraq who was
9
killed by U.S. forces in 2006. 14”
10
11
107. On August 21, 2014, the anti-defamation league explained that ISIS supporters on
12
Twitter have “not only promoted ISIS propaganda (primarily in English) but has
13
also directed supporters to his English-language Facebook pages (continuously
14
15
16
replacing pages as they are removed by Facebook for content violation) that do
the same. 15”
17
18
19
108. On October 28, 2015, at the Radicalization: Social Media And The Rise Of
Terrorism hearing it was reported that Zale Thompson who attacked four New
20
York City Police Officers with an ax posted on Facebook “Which is better, to sit
21
22
23
24
13
25
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/10/farrow-why-arent-youtube-facebook-andTwitter-doing-more-to-stop-terrorists-from-inciting-violence/
26
14
27
15
28
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/16/husain-facebook-refuses-take-down-isis-terror-grou/
http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/international-extremism-terrorism/c/isis-islamic-state-socialmedia.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/#.Vzs0xfkrIdU
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
29
1
2
around and do nothing or to wage jihad. 16”
109. At this same hearing, it was also reported that in September 2014 “Alton Nolen,
3
4
5
a convert to Islam and ex-convict who had just been fired from his job at a food
processing plant, entered his former workplace and beheaded an employee with a
6
knife. This attack combines elements of workplace violence and terrorism. Nolen
7
8
had been a voracious consumer of IS propaganda, a fact reflected on his Facebook
9
page. 17”
10
11
110. On November 11, 2015, it was reported that one of the attackers from a terrorist
12
bus attack two weeks prior “was a regular on Facebook, where he had already
13
posted a “will for any martyr.” Very likely, they made use of one of the thousands
14
15
16
of posts, manuals and instructional videos circulating in Palestinian society these
last few weeks, like the image, shared by thousands on Facebook, showing an
17
18
19
anatomical chart of the human body with advice on where to stab for maximal
damage. 18”
20
111. On December 4, 2015, The Counter Extremism Project released a statement that
21
22
“Today’s news that one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attack that killed 14
23
24
16
25
26
27
28
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/10-28-2015-Natl-Security-Subcommittee-Hearingon-Radicalization-Purdy-TRC-Testimony.pdf
17
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/10-28-2015-Natl-Security-Subcommittee-Hearingon-Radicalization-Gartenstein-Ross-FDD-Testimony.pdf
18
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/the-facebook-intifada.html?_r=1
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
30
1
2
innocent people pledged allegiance to ISIS in a Facebook posting demonstrates
once again that the threat of ISIS and violent Islamist extremist ideology knows
3
4
5
no borders.19”
112. On April 8, 2016, the Mirror reported that “Jihadi fighters in the Middle East are
6
using Facebook to buy and sell heavy duty weaponry” and that “Fighters in ISIS7
8
9
linked regions in Libya are creating secret arms bazaars and hosting them on the
massive social network. Because of Facebook's ability to create groups and to send
10
11
secure payments through its Messenger application, it works as the perfect
12
platform for illegal deals. 20”
13
The Use of YouTube by ISIS has been widely reported
14
15
16
113. The media has widely reported on terrorists’ use of YouTube and YouTube’s
refusal to take any meaningful action to stop it.
17
18
19
20
114. On July 7, 2014, CBS Local reported that “militants post beheading videos on
sites like Google’s YouTube, giving an image the chance to go viral before being
shut down.21”
21
22
115. On March 1, 2015, the New York Times reported that “some of the most
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
http://www.counterextremism.com/press/counter-extremism-project-releases-statement-news-san-bernardinoshooter-pledgedallegiance?utm_content=buffer38967&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer#sthash.i
JjhU3bF.dpuf
20
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/isis-terrorists-use-facebook-buy-7713893
21
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/07/24/should-Twitter-facebook-be-held-liable-for-a-terrorist-attack/
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
31
1
2
sophisticated recruitment efforts by the Islamic State, particularly online, are
geared toward Westerners, featuring speakers who are fluent in English. For
3
4
5
instance, in a video available on YouTube and Facebook, the Islamic State has
manipulated the video game Grand Theft Auto, making the game’s officers look
6
like New York police officers and showing how a militant could attack them. 22”
7
8
9
116. On March 3, 2015, CNN Money reported that YouTube was placing
advertisements in front of ISIS videos 23.
10
11
12
13
117. On March 10th 2015, Death and Taxes released an article titled Beer ads keep
showing up on ISIS YouTube videos 24.
118. On March 10th 2015, NBC News released an article titled Ads Shown Before
14
15
16
YouTube ISIS Videos Catch Companies Off-Guard 25.
119. On March 11, 2015, NewsMediaRockstars.com reported that “Major corporations
17
18
19
20
like Procter and Gamble, Anheuser-Busch, and Toyota have all been forced to
make apologies after ads for their products started rolling in front of ISIS
recruiting videos which have been cropping up ever more frequently on the site. 26”
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/nyregion/brooklyn-arrests-highlight-challenges-in-fighting-of-isis-andknown-wolves.html?_r=0
23
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/03/technology/isis-ads-youtube/
24
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/239510/beer-ads-keep-showing-up-on-isis-youtube-videos/
25
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/ads-shown-isis-videos-youtube-catch-companies-guard-n320946
26
http://newmediarockstars.com/2015/03/advertisers-apologize-for-ads-shown-on-isis-youtube-videos/
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
32
1
120. On August 6, 2015, Journal-Neo.org reported that “The well-known online video
2
platform YouTube serves as the main media platform of these radical fighters. 27”
3
4
121. On April 28, 2015, MusicTechPolicy.com reported that the Islamic State has
5
released a new YouTube video “showcasing recent battles in the Al Sufiyah area
6
of eastern Ramadi. Approximately 30 Iraqi police have been killed and around
7
100 more have been injured in recent days in the western provincial capital.28”
8
9
122. In March 2016, the Morning Consult reported that “a video ad from a pro-Ted
10
11
Cruz Super PAC (Reigniting the Promise PAC) was the inadvertent prelude to a
12
video produced by an official media outlet of the Islamic State terror group. The
13
outlet, Al-Hayat Media Center, produces propaganda for ISIS. Digital Citizens
14
Alliance says it’s likely an ISIS supporter uploaded that video.”
15
16
123. In March 2016 the digital citizens’ alliance found several examples of campaign
17
ads placed on ISIS videos 29.
18
Defendants Have Rebuffed Numerous Requests to Comply with U.S. Law
19
20
124. Throughout this period, both the U.S. government and the public at large have
21
urged Defendants to stop providing its services to terrorists.
22
23
24
27
25
28
26
27
28
http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/08/hi-tech-tools-of-isil-propaganda/
https://musictechpolicy.com/2015/04/28/live-from-youtubeistan-google-still-providing-material-support-for-
isis/
29
https://media.gractions.com/314A5A5A9ABBBBC5E3BD824CF47C46EF4B9D3A76/cbb90db1-b1aa-4b29a4d5-5d6453acc2cd.pdf
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
33
1
2
125. In December 2011, an Israeli law group threatened to file suit against Twitter for
allowing terrorist groups like Hezbollah to use its social network in violation of
3
4
5
U.S. anti-terrorism laws.
126. In December 2012, several members of Congress wrote to FBI Director Robert
6
Mueller asking the Bureau to demand that the Twitter block the accounts of
7
8
9
various terrorist groups.
127. In a committee hearing held on August 2, 2012, Rep. Ted Poe, chair of the House
10
11
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, lamented that “when it comes to a
12
terrorist using Twitter, Twitter has not shut down or suspended a single account.”
13
“Terrorists are using Twitter,” Rep. Poe added, and “[i]t seems like it’s a violation
14
15
of the law.” In 2015, Rep. Poe again reported that Twitter had consistently failed
16
to respond sufficiently to pleas to shut down clear incitements to violence by
17
18
19
terrorists.
128. Recently, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged Defendants to
20
become more aggressive in preventing ISIS from using its network. “Resolve
21
22
23
means depriving jihadists of virtual territory, just as we work to deprive them of
actual territory,” she told one audience. Later, Secy. Clinton stated that Twitter
24
25
26
27
and other companies “cannot permit the recruitment and the actual direction of
attacks or the celebration of violence by this sophisticated Internet user. They’re
going to have to help us take down these announcements and these appeals.”
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
34
1
129. On January 7, 2016, White House officials announced that they would hold
2
high- level discussions with Defendants to encourage them “to do more to block
3
terrorists” from using their services. “The primary purpose is for government
4
5
officials to press the biggest Internet firms to take a more proactive approach to
6
countering terrorist messages and recruitment online. . . . That issue has long
7
vexed U.S. counterterrorism officials, as terror groups use Twitter . . . to spread
8
terrorist propaganda, cultivate followers and steer them toward committing
9
violence. But the companies have resisted some requests by law-enforcement
10
11
12
13
leaders to take action . . .”
Defendants have failed to prevent ISIS from using its services
130. Despite these appeals, Defendants have failed to take meaningful action.
14
15
16
17
131. In a January 2011 blog post entitled “The tweets Must Flow,” Twitter cofounder Biz Stone and Twitter General Counsel Alex Macgillivray wrote: “We
don’t always agree with the things people choose to tweet, but we keep the
18
19
20
information flowing irrespective of any view we may have about the content.”
132. On June 20, 2014, Twitter founder Biz Stone, responding to media questions about
21
22
23
24
ISIS’s use of Twitter to publicize its acts of terrorism, said, “[i]f you want to create
a platform that allows for the freedom of expression for hundreds of millions of
people around the world, you really have to take the good with the bad.”
25
26
27
133. In September 2014, Twitter spokesperson Nu Wexler reiterated Twitter’s handsoff approach, telling the press, “Twitter users around the world send
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
35
1
2
approximately 500 million tweets each day, and we do not monitor them
proactively.” “The Twitter Rules” reiterated that Twitter “do[es] not actively
3
4
5
monitor and will not censor user content, except in exceptional circumstances.”
In February 2015, Twitter confirmed that it does not proactively monitor content
6
and that it reviews only that content which is reported by other users as violating
7
8
9
its rules.
134. Most technology experts agree that Defendants could and should be doing more
10
to stop ISIS from using its social network. “When Twitter says, ‘We can’t do this,’
11
12
I don’t believe that,” said Hany Farid, chairman of the computer science
13
department at Dartmouth College. Mr. Farid, who co-developed a child
14
pornography tracking system with Microsoft, says that the same technology could
15
be applied to terror content, so long as companies were motivated to do so.
16
17
“There’s no fundamental technology or engineering limitation,” he said. “This is
18
a business or policy decision. Unless the companies have decided that they just
19
can’t be bothered.”
20
21
135. According to Rita Katz, the director of SITE Intelligence Group, “Twitter is not
doing enough. With the technology Twitter has, they can immediately stop these
22
23
24
accounts, but they have done nothing to stop the dissemination and recruitment of
lone wolf terrorists.”
25
136. Even when Defendants shut down an ISIS-linked account, they do nothing to stop
26
it from springing right back up. According to the New York Times, the Twitter
27
account of the pro- ISIS group Asawitiri Media has had 335 accounts. When its
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
36
1
account @TurMedia333 was shut down, it started @TurMedia334. When that was
2
shut down, it started @TurMedia335. This “naming convention — adding one
3
digit to a new account after the last one is suspended — does not seem as if it
4
5
would require artificial intelligence to spot.” Each of these accounts also used the
6
same user photograph of a bearded man’s face over and over again. In the hours
7
after the shooting attack in San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015,
8
@TurMedia335 tweeted: “California, we have already arrived with our soldiers.
9
Decide how to be your end, with knife or bomb.”
10
11
12
13
137. Using this simplistic naming scheme is critical to ISIS’s use of social media.
Without a common prefix, it would be difficult for followers of ISIS accounts to
know the new name of the account.
14
15
138. Because of the simplistic renaming scheme, Defendants could easily detect names
16
that are likely to be replacement accounts and delete them almost as soon as they
17
18
19
20
are created. Yet Defendants have failed to implement such a basic account
detection methodology.
139. Furthermore, ISIS keeps track of the followers of each account. Once an account
21
22
23
is deleted by one of the Defendants and then regenerated, ISIS uses a bot to contact
each of its followers asking them to connect. This allows ISIS to reconstitute the
24
connections for each account very quickly. Defendants could easily detect such
25
26
27
activity but chose not to.
140. Although Defendants proclaim that they do take accounts down including those
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
37
1
2
of ISIS, Defendants do nothing to keep those accounts down. ISIS and other
nefarious groups are dependent upon having a social media network from which
3
4
5
to collect money and conduct terrorist operations including recruitment and
radicalization.
6
141. The following example illustrates how Defendants allow ISIS to quickly construct
7
8
9
networks of followers. Below is a posting from Twitter captured on June 20,
2016. The individual is named “DriftOne00146” and he proudly proclaims that
10
11
this is the 146th version of his account. With only 11 tweets, this individual is
12
followed by 349 followers. This is very suspicious activity.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Figure 6: DriftOne00146 posting 06/20/2016
28
142. The very next day, this individual now has 547 followers with only 3 additional
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
38
1
tweets.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 7: DriftOne00146 posting June 21, 2016
17
143. The next morning, this individual’s account was taken down by Twitter. That
18
afternoon, he was back up as DriftOne0147 with 80 followers.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 8: DriftOne0147 posting June 22, 2016
14
144. The very next week on June 28, 2016, the same individual was back up as
15
16
17
DriftOne150. Most disturbing is that his posting of #Bangladesh and #Dhaka just
three days before the unfortunate ISIS attack in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 9: DriftOne150 posting June 28, 2016
145. The day after the attacks, he is now DriftOne0151 and he posts pictures of those
16
17
individuals who conducted the attacks.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 10: DriftOne0151 posting July 2, 2016
14
15
16
17
18
146. What the above example clearly demonstrates is that there is a pattern that is easily
detectable without reference to the content. As such, a content-neutral algorithm
could be easily developed that would prohibit the above behavior. First, there is
19
20
21
a text prefix to the username that contains a numerical suffix. When an account
is taken down by a Defendant, assuredly all such names are tracked by
22
23
24
25
Defendants. It would be trivial to detect names that appear to have the same name
root with a numerical suffix which is incremented. By limiting the ability to
simply create a new account by incrementing a numerical suffix to one which has
26
27
28
been deleted, this will disrupt the ability of individuals and organizations from
using Defendants networks as an instrument for conducting terrorist operations.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
42
1
2
147. Prohibiting this conduct would be simple for Defendants to implement and not
impinge upon the utility of Defendants sites. There is no legitimate purpose for
3
4
5
allowing the use of fixed prefix/incremental numerical suffix names. Preventing
the use of these names once a similarly named account would not place a
6
significant burden on Defendants to implement nor would it place any “chilling”
7
8
9
effect on the use of Defendants’ sites.
148. Sending out large numbers of requests to connect with friends/followers from a
10
11
newly created account is also suspicious activity. As shown in the “DriftOne”
12
example above, it is clear that this individual must be keeping track of those
13
previously connected. When an account is taken down and then re-established,
14
15
the individual then uses an automated method to send out requests to all those
16
members previously connected. Thus, accounts for ISIS and others can quickly
17
18
19
reconstitute after being deleted. Such activity is suspicious on its face.
149. Clearly, it is not normal activity for a newly created account to send out large
20
numbers of requests for friends and followers immediately after creation. It is
21
22
23
further unusual for those connections requests to be accepted in a very short period
of time. As such, this activity would be easy to detect and could be prohibited by
24
25
26
27
Defendants in a content-neutral manner as the content is never considered; only
the conduct.
150. Furthermore, limiting the rapidity with which a newly created account can send
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
43
1
2
requests to friends/followers would not place a significant burden on Defendants
to implement.
Once again, such activity is suspicious and suggestive of
3
4
5
reconstitution of an account which was deleted by Defendants. In addition,
Defendants could easily track that a newly created account similarly named to one
6
previously taken down is sending out large numbers of requests in a very short
7
8
9
period of time.
151. Because the suspicious activity used by ISIS and other nefarious organizations
10
11
engaged in illegal activities is easily detectable and preventable and that
12
Defendants are fully aware that these organizations are using their networks to
13
engage in illegal activity demonstrates that Defendants are acting knowingly and
14
15
recklessly allowing such illegal conduct. ISIS is dependent on using social media
16
to conduct its terrorist operations. Limiting ISIS’ ability to rapidly connect and
17
18
19
reconnect to supports Thus, Defendants knowing and reckless conduct provides
materials support to ISIS and other nefarious organizations.
20
152. Notably, while Twitter has now put in place a rule that supposedly prohibits
21
22
23
“threats of violence . . . including threatening or promoting terrorism,” many ISISthemed accounts are still easily found on Twitter.com. To this day, Twitter also
24
25
26
27
permits groups designated by the U.S. government as Foreign Terrorist
Organizations to maintain official accounts, including Hamas (@hamasinfo and
@HamasInfoEn) and Hizbollah (@almanarnews).
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
44
1
2
153. On November 17, 2015, the hacking group Anonymous took down several
thousand ISIS Twitter accounts. That an external third party could identify and
3
4
5
disrupt ISIS Twitter accounts confirms that Twitter itself could have prevented or
substantially limited ISIS’ use of Twitter.
6
Twitter, Facebook, and Google Profit from allowing ISIS to use their services
7
8
9
10
154. Astonishingly, Defendants routinely profit from ISIS. Each Defendant places ads
on ISIS postings and derives revenue for the ad placement.
155. These ads are not placed randomly by Defendants. Instead, they are targeted to
11
12
the viewer using knowledge about the viewer as well as information about the
13
content being viewed. The following sites for each Defendant show how
14
15
16
17
targeting works: https://business.Twitter.com/en/targeting.html,
https://www.facebook.com/business/a/online-sales/ad-targeting-details,
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.youtube.com/en//yt/advertise/
18
19
20
medias/pdfs/targeting-onesheeter-en.pdf.
156. By specifically targeting advertisements based on viewers and content,
21
Defendants are no longer simply passing through the content of third parties.
22
23
24
Defendants are themselves creating content because Defendants exercise control
over what advertisement to match with an ISIS posting. Furthermore, Defendants’
25
26
profits are enhanced by charging advertisers extra for targeting advertisements at
27
viewers based upon knowledge of the viewer and the content being viewed.
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
45
1
2
157. Not only does Defendant Google profit from ISIS, it shares some of those
revenues with ISIS. In order for ads to appear associated with a posting on a
3
4
5
YouTube video, the poster must create a Google AdSense account. The poster
must the register the account for monetization30.
6
7
8
9
158. According to Google, each video must be approved in order for ads to be placed.
10
11
These videos must meet Googles’ terms of service.
12
13
14
159. Videos that are approved generate revenue for both the poster and for Google.
15
16
17
Therefore, according to its terms, if there are ads associated with a YouTube
video, the video has been approved by Google, Google is earning revenue from
18
each view of that video, and Google is sharing revenue with the poster.
19
20
160. With respect to ISIS, Google has placed ads on ISIS postings.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
https://www.youtube.com/account_monetization accessed on 5/24/2016.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 11 ISIS video on YouTube with ad place by Google
15
161. Given that ad placement on videos requires Google’s specific approval of the
16
video according to Google’s terms and conditions, any video which is associated
17
18
19
20
with advertising has been approved by Google.
162. Because ads appear on the above video posted by ISIS, this means that Google
specifically approved the video for monetization, Google earned revenue from
21
22
each view of this video, and Google shared the revenue with ISIS. As a result,
23
Google provides material support to ISIS.
24
25
26
27
163. Twitter also profits from material posted by ISIS by routinely placing ads. For
example, a view of the account of “DJ Nasheed” on May 17, 2016, shows that
Twitter placed an ad for OneNorth for their “M.E.A.N. Stack” offering. As such,
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
47
1
Twitter provides material support to ISIS and is compensated for the effort.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 12 ISIS post on Twitter with ad placed by Twitter
15
16
17
164. Facebook also profits from ISIS postings. On May 31, 2016, the following
screenshot was collected:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Figure 13 ISIS post on Facebook with add placed by Facebook
14
15
165. As such, Facebook provides material support to ISIS and is compensated for the
16
effort.
17
18
19
166. Thus, not only does each Defendant provide material support to ISIS by allowing
ISIS to make use of their social media sites, each Defendant derives revenue from
20
21
22
23
ISIS postings irrespective of the content of ISIS’s postings.
The December 2, 2015 San Bernadino Attack
167. On December 2, 2015, Radicalized ISIS supporters Syed Rizwan Farook and
24
25
Tashfeen Malik stormed the Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino,
26
California firing more that 100 bullets into a staff meeting of the environmental
27
28
health department. In all, 14 people were murdered and 22 were seriously
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
49
1
2
injured. Subsequent to the attack, Farook and Malik were killed in a shootout
with police.
3
4
5
168. Among the murdered were Decedents Sierra Clayborn, Tin Nguyen, and
Nicholas Thalasinos.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 14: Sierra Clayborn
17
18
19
169. Sierra Clayborn, only 27, was killed in the mass terrorist shooting in San
Bernardino on December 2, 2015.
New to her career in Public and
20
Environmental Health, Sierra was truly thankful for her opportunity to serve the
21
22
23
people of San Bernardino as a health inspector. In fact, Sierra had
communicated to friends that “she was thankful that God had given her this
24
25
26
27
career.”
170. Family and friends acknowledge that Sierra was “such a bright star in the lives
of others” that the terrorism committed by Rizwan Farook and Tasheen Malik,
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
50
1
2
has resulted in the reality that “Sierra will never be forgotten, and will always be
missed.” Following the massacre, her best friend and sister Tamishia, stated,
3
4
“my heart is broken, I am forever devastated.”
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Figure 15: Tin Nguyen
16
171. Tin Nguyen was an ambitious and goal oriented 31-year old, Public Health
17
18
Inspector in San Bernardino, California. She and her family fled Vietnam when
19
Tin was only 8 years of age, with hope that Tin would live a “happier, more
20
successful life” in the United States. Tin was tragically killed in the terrorist
21
22
23
attack in San Bernardino, on December 2nd, 2015 by terrorists Syed RIzwan
Farook, and his spouse, Tashfeen Malik.
24
25
26
27
172. Tin’s family believes that her compassion for her community is best exemplified
by the countless hours she volunteered researching a cure for Parkinson’s
disease. Tin’s massacre is felt daily by her family, and especially the love of her
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
51
1
life, San Trinh, whom Tin planned to marry in 2017.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 16: Nicholas Thalasinos
15
173. Nicholas Thalasinos, age 52 was tragically gunned down and killed in the acts
16
of Terrorism that took place in San Bernardino, on December 2, 2015. Nicholas,
17
18
was remembered by his surviving spouse, Jennifer, as a “very devout believer.”
19
A member of the Messianic Jewish faith, Nicholas was always known to wear
20
tzitzit, Traditional fringe tassels, as well as a tie clip bearing the Star of David,
21
22
23
and carried a very strong faith.
174. Nicholas, was long committed to serving compassionately as a Health Inspector
24
25
26
27
in his community of San Bernardino. Following his death at the hands of
terrorists, Farook and Malik, friends warmly memorialized Nicholas, as “the
man in their lives who was willing to lend a hand to others.”
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
52
1
2
175. US Department of Justice analysts confirmed in their 141-page summary on the
San
Bernardino,
massacre,
that
“two
individuals
opened
fire
3
4
5
indiscriminately…as part of a vicious and premeditated terrorist attack…
176. On December 2, 2015, radicalized, ISIS supporters, Syed Rizwan Farook and
6
his spouse Tashfeen Malik committed an act of international terrorism by
7
8
9
spraying bullets into a crowd of employees at a holiday party for the
environmental health department in San Bernardino.
10
11
177. Investigators have confirmed that Farook and Malik started a dialogue on line
12
via a dating web site, and married a short time after Farook travelled to Saudi
13
Arabia in 2014. Malik travelled to California to live with her husband shortly
14
15
after their wedding. At the time of their terrorist attack and ultimately their
16
deaths, Malik and Farook had a 6-month-old daughter.
17
18
19
178. The acts of terrorism in the San Bernardino massacre were conducted against
Farook’s former co-workers who assembled for the scheduled environmental
20
health department training session, to be followed by a celebration of the holiday
21
22
23
season.
179. Instead, Farook and Malik killed 14 people and severely injured 14 others during
24
25
26
27
their terrorist massacre. The assassins, Farook and Malik were also killed the
same day by resisting arrest and entering a shoot- out with law enforcement.
180. Farook and Malik were dressed in black outfits and face coverings, and armed
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
53
1
2
with .223 AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles, and a .9mm semi-automatic pistol,
as well as assembled pipe bombs that failed to detonate.
3
4
5
181. Just a couple of days later, ISIS embraced the acts of terrorism by declaring on
their station, al-Bayan Radio, “Two followers of Islamic State attacked several
6
days ago a center in San Bernardino in California, we pray to God to accept them
7
8
9
as Martyrs.”
182. Moreover, during the time of the shooting massacre, terrorist Tashfeen Malik,
10
11
declared on Facebook her allegiance and pledge of loyalty to ISIS leader, Abu
12
Bakr al-Baghdadi.
13
183. On December 9, 2015, during Senate Judiciary testimony concerning the San
14
15
Bernardino terrorist attack, FBI Director James Comey, stated for the record that
16
the investigation by the FBI had established that Farook and Malik were
17
18
19
“consuming poison on the internet” and that both had become radicalized to
jihadism and to martyrdom via social media platforms available to them.
20
184. During his testimony, Comey confirmed that Farook and Malik were
21
22
23
“homegrown violent extremists, inspired by foreign terrorist organizations.”
185. The FBI according to the report of the New York Times, (December 5,2015) has
24
25
26
27
confirmed that they had evidence that Farook had face to face meetings a few
years ago with 5 people the Bureau investigated and labelled as having “links to
terrorism”.
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
54
1
2
186. Further links to terrorism were discovered in the home of Farook and Malik,
where FBI search uncovered what they described as “pipe bombs, bomb making
3
4
5
materials and thousands of rounds of ammunition along with several more
guns.”
6
187. Speaking of “home grown international terrorists, in the US, including Farook
7
8
9
and Malik in San Bernardino, Brookings Institute Terrorism expert, Daniel
Byman has stated the Islamic State has made their radicalization of US
10
11
extremists in 2014 releases via the ISIS Online magazine Dabiq which urged in
12
their October 2014 on line edition” At this point of our crusade. It is very
13
important that attacks take place in every country that has entered into alliance
14
15
against the Islamic State, especially the U.S., U.K., France, Australia and
16
Germany.”
17
18
19
188. The DOJ, in their 2016 report entitled “Bringing Calm to Chaos: A critical
incident review of the San Bernardino public safety response to the December
20
2, 2015, terrorist shooting at the Island Regional Center”, confirms that the
21
22
23
attack committed by Rizwan Farouk, and Tashfeen Malik was in fact an act of
international terrorism. (page 48)
24
25
26
27
189. A factor helping to confirm that the massacre in San Bernardino was an act of
terrorism was the discovery in the aftermath by FBI SWAT agents, that Terrorist
Farook had evidently assembled and left in a “suspicious package”, explosive
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
55
1
2
devices that miraculously failed to detonate and were later safely detonated by
the bomb squad.
3
4
5
190. The DOJ summary report confirms that “investigators believed the explosive
devices left by Farook in the conference room where the carnage occurred, was
6
likely intended to be detonated upon the arrival of the first responders who would
7
8
9
be giving aid to the wounded-a frequent, well documented practice in
international terror incidents.” (DOJ, San Bernardino Summary report, page 36).
10
11
191. FBI and DOJ investigators have indicated that they are of the belief that terrorists
12
Farook and Malik, left at the massacre site a remote-controlled toy car strapped
13
with the 3 rudimentary explosive devices. The deadly remote was found with
14
15
16
Farook and Malik upon their deaths, and evidently did not work.
192. FBI investigators have opined that the explosive devices along with the remote
17
18
19
control was likely intended to be detonated against the first responders arriving
to provide medical help to terrorism victims. Further they are potentially derived
20
from Al Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine, plus the ISIS’ Dabiq Magazine, wherein the
21
22
23
international terrorist organizations have provided “tips” and instructions to be
utilized in preparation of such explosive devices as found at the scene of the San
24
25
26
27
Bernardino carnage.
193. The murders of Nguyen, Clayborn and Thalasinos has caused Plaintiff’s severe
mental anguish, extreme emotional pain and suffering, and the loss of Nguyen’s,
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
56
1
2
Clayborn’s and Thalasinos’ society, companionship, comfort, advice and
counsel.
3
4
Defendants’ Material Support of ISIS has a Direct Connection to the December
2, 2015 San Bernadino Attack and is a Proximate Cause
5
6
194. ISIS’s reputation as an organization that has engaged in and continues to engage
7
8
in terrorist acts is widespread and has been reported in the world news media.
9
10
11
195. ISIS’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization is public knowledge that
has likewise been widely reported in the world news media.
12
13
196. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have known that ISIS is an
14
organization that has engaged in and continues to engage in terrorist activity.
15
16
17
197. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have known that ISIS is
designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
18
19
20
198. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have for years knowingly provided its
Services to ISIS, its members, organizations owned or controlled by ISIS, and
21
22
23
organizations and individuals that provide financing and material support to ISIS,
including individuals and organizations that are designated as and SDGTs.
24
25
26
199. The identifiers for ISIS-associated Twitter, You-Tube, and Facebook accounts are
often publicized on ISIS websites, social media sites, and platforms.
27
28
200. ISIS’s news and media organizations operate Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
57
1
2
accounts, and equipment often including separate accounts for Arabic and
English.
3
4
201. ISIS, its members, and its related entities and affiliates have operated numerous
5
Twitter accounts of the defendants’ using their own names and displaying
6
7
emblems and symbols associated with ISIS and its related terrorist entities.
8
9
10
11
202. The rise of ISIS has been substantial fueled through their use of Defendants’ social
media sites which have been used by ISIS for fundraising activities. Furthermore,
as discussed above, Defendant Google shares advertising revenue with ISIS.
12
13
203. Defendants’ sites have been used by ISIS to conduct terrorist operations, including
14
the San Bernadino attack and have also been used as a recruitment tool and
15
16
fundraising tool.
17
18
19
204. The FBI believes that the San Bernadino shooters were self-radicalized on the
Internet and social media.
20
21
22
205. ISIS uses Defendants’ sites to radicalize individuals to conduct terrorist activities.
Farook and Malik were radicalized by ISIS’s use of Defendants’ tools to conduct
23
24
25
terrorist operations.
206. Even if Farook and Malik had never been directly in contact with ISIS, ISIS’ use
26
27
of social media directly influenced their actions on the day of the San Bernadino
28
massacre:
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
58
researchers, who identified and analyzed second-by-second online
records of 196 pro-ISIS groups operating during the first eight months of
2015, found that even though most of the 108,000-plus individual
members of these self-organized groups probably never met, they had a
striking ability to adapt and extend their online longevity, increase their
size and number, reincarnate when shut down — and inspire “lone
wolves” with no history of extremism to carry out horrific attacks. 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
207. Without the ability to use Defendants’ sites as tools to conduct terrorist operations,
7
ISIS would have substantially less funding, substantially less exposure, and would
8
not be able to recruit as many operatives.
9
10
11
208. Money raised through the use of Defendants sites was used by ISIS to conduct
terrorist operations including radicalizing Farook and Malik.
12
13
14
209. Individuals recruited by ISIS through the use of Defendants sites allowed ISIS to
15
conduct terrorist operations, including radicalizing Farook and Malik contributing
16
to their decision to launch the San Bernadino attack and murdering Plainitffs’
17
Decedents.
18
19
20
210. Subsequent to the San Bernadino attack and before their death, Malik pledged her
21
allegiance to ISIS on Facebook. Facebook further confirmed that postings to an
22
account established by Malic under an alias praised the Islamic state32.
23
24
211. On December 5, 2015 ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack on its radio
25
26
27
28
31
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20160620-tracking-analyzing-how-isis-recruits-through-social-
media
32
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/05/san-bernardino-killers-were-our-followers-isis-claims.html
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
59
1
broadcast33.
2
3
212. But for ISIS’ use of Defendants sites to raise funds, recruit, and conduct terrorist
4
operations, ISIS’ ability to conduct terrorist operations would essentially
5
evaporate. Here, had Defendants sites not been used by ISIS, ISIS would not have
6
7
8
been able to radicalize Farook and Malik leading to the deadly attack in San
Bernadino.
9
Defendants Are Information Content Providers
10
11
12
13
213. When individuals look at a page on one of Defendants’ sites that contains postings
and advertisements, the page has been created by Defendants. In other words, a
14
viewer does not simply see a posting.
Nor does the viewer see just an
15
16
advertisement. Defendants create a composite page of content from multiple
17
sources.
18
19
214. Defendants create this page by selecting which advertisement to match with the
20
content on the page. This selection is done by Defendants’ proprietary algorithms
21
22
23
that select the advertisement based on information about the viewer and the
content being viewed.
Thus there is a content triangle matching postings,
24
25
advertisements, and viewers.
26
27
28
33
Id.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
60
1
2
215. As discussed above, Defendants tout the ability to target advertisements as a
benefit to advertising with the respective networks. Furthermore, Defendants
3
4
extract a premium from advertisers for the use of targeted advertising.
5
216. Although Defendants have not created the posting nor have they created the
6
7
8
advertisement, Defendants have created new unique content by choosing which
advertisement to combine with the posting with knowledge about the viewer.
9
10
11
217. Thus, Defendants have incorporated content from others into Defendant created
content for revenue purposes.
Defendants’ choice to combine certain
12
13
advertisements with certain postings for specific viewers means that Defendants
14
are not simply passing along content created by third parties.
15
16
218. Specifically, as shown above, Defendants have incorporated ISIS postings along
17
with advertisements matched to the viewer and ISIS postings to create new
18
19
content for which Defendants have earned revenue. ISIS has received material
20
support as described above allowing them to conduct terrorist operations.
21
22
The San Bernadino Attack Was An Act of International Terrorism
23
24
25
26
219. One of the state goals of ISIS is to use social media including Defendants
platforms to radicalize individuals to conduct attacks throughout the world,
including the United States.
27
28
220. By radicalizing individuals through social media, this allowed ISIS to exert its
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
61
1
2
influence without the necessity of direct physical contact with these individuals.
Furthermore, this allows ISIS to incite or participate in attacks without the
3
4
necessity of sending its own operatives.
5
221. Thus, an attack in the United States to which ISIS’ use of social media caused or
6
7
8
contributed is an action by ISIS.
Given that ISIS has been declared an
international terrorist organization, such an action is an act of international
9
10
11
terrorism.
222. Farook and Malik were radicalized by ISIS’ use of social media. This was the
12
13
stated goal of ISIS. Farook and Mateen then carried out the deadly attack in San
14
Bernadino. Conducting terrorist acts via radicalized individuals is a stated goal
15
16
17
of ISIS.
223. Farook and Malik’s attack on the Inland Regional Center was a violent act causing
18
19
death and injury and constitutes numerous criminal acts under the laws of the
20
United States.
21
22
23
224. ISIS intended to intimidate and coerce western populations and governments
through a pattern of intimidation and coercion as discussed throughout Plaintiff’s
24
25
26
Complaint.
225. ISIS acts from outside the United States using Defendants’ platforms in a manner
27
28
and transcend national boundaries because of the international usage of
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
62
1
Defendants’ platforms.
2
3
226. But for ISIS’ postings using Defendants’ social media platforms, Farook and
4
Malik would not have engaged in their attack on the Inland Regional Center.
5
6
7
227. Farook and Malik’s terrorist actions were a direct result of ISIS’ actions and
given that ISIS is an international terrorist organization, Farook and Malik’s
8
9
10
actions were also an act of international terrorism.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
11
12
13
14
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
LIABILITY FOR AIDING AND ABETTING
ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and (d)
15
16
228. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the foregoing
17
18
19
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
229. Since October 31, 2001, ISIS has been international terrorist organization.
20
21
230. ISIS has committed, planned, or authorized activities that involved violence or
22
acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
23
24
States, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
25
of the United States, including inter alia the prohibition on killing, attempting to
26
27
kill, causing serious bodily injury, or attempting to cause serious bodily injury to
28
U.S. citizens as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2332.
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
63
1
2
231. These activities committed, planned, or authorized by ISIS appear to have been,
and were intended to: (a) intimidate or coerce the civilian population of the United
3
4
5
States and other countries; (b) influence the policy of the Governments of the
United States and other countries by intimidation or coercion; or (c) affect the
6
conduct of the Governments of the United States and other countries by mass
7
8
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
9
10
11
232. These activities committed, planned, or authorized by ISIS occurred entirely or
primarily outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and constituted
12
acts of international terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2331(1).
13
14
233. Plaintiffs have been injured in their person by reason of the acts of international
15
16
17
18
terrorism committed, planned, or authorized by ISIS. At all times relevant to this
action, Defendants knew that ISIS was a Foreign Terrorist Organization, that it
had engaged in and continued to engage in illegal acts of terrorism, including
19
20
international terrorism.
21
234. Defendants knowingly provided substantial assistance and encouragement to
22
23
24
ISIS, and thus aided and abetted ISIS in committing, planning, or authorizing acts
of international terrorism, including the acts of international terrorism that injured
25
26
27
Plaintiffs.
235. By aiding and abetting ISIS in committing, planning, or authorizing acts of
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
64
1
2
international terrorism, including acts that caused Plaintiffs to be injured in his or
her person and property, Defendants are liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a)
3
4
5
and (d) for threefold any and all damages that Plaintiffs have sustained as a result
of such injuries, and the costs of this suit, including attorney’s fees.
6
7
8
236. The services and support that Defendants purposefully, knowingly or with
willful blindness provided to ISIS constitute material support to the preparation
9
10
11
and carrying out of acts of international terrorism, including the attack in which
Plaintiffs’ Decedents were killed.
12
13
14
237. Defendants’ provision of material support to ISIS was a proximate cause of
the injury inflicted on Plaintiffs.
15
16
17
238. By virtue of its violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, Defendants are liable pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 2333 for any and all damages that Plaintiffs have sustained.
18
19
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
20
LIABILITY FOR CONSPIRING IN FURTHERANCE OF ACTS OF
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and (d)
21
22
23
24
25
239. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
26
27
240. Defendants knowingly agreed, licensed, and permitted ISIS, its affiliates, and
28
other radical groups to register and use Defendants’ sites to promote and carry out
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
65
1
2
ISIS’s activities, including ISIS’s illegal acts of international terrorism and injured
Plaintiffs.
3
4
241. Defendants were aware that U.S. federal law prohibited providing material
5
support and resources to, or engaging in transactions with, designated foreign
6
7
terrorist organizations and other specially designated terrorists.
8
9
10
11
242. Defendants thus conspired with ISIS in its illegal provision of Defendants’ sites
and equipment to promote and carry out ISIS’s illegal acts of international
terrorism, including the acts that injured Plaintiffs.
12
13
243. By conspiring with ISIS in furtherance of ISIS’s committing, planning, or
14
authorizing acts of international terrorism, including acts that caused each of the
15
16
Plaintiffs to be injured in his or her person and property, Defendants are liable
17
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) and (d) for threefold any and all damages that
18
19
Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of such injuries, and the costs of this suit,
20
including attorney’s fees.
21
22
23
24
25
26
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PROVISION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS IN VIOLATION
OF 18 U.S.C. § 2339a AND 18 U.S.C. § 2333
244. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
27
28
245. The online social media platform and communication services which Defendants
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
66
1
2
knowingly provided to ISIS, including use of Defendants’ services, computers,
and communications equipment, substantially assisted ISIS in carrying out its
3
4
5
terrorist activities, including recruiting, radicalizing, and instructing terrorists,
raising funds, creating fear and carrying out attacks among other things.
6
7
8
246. These services and equipment constituted material support and resources pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and they facilitated acts of terrorism in violation of 18
9
10
11
U.S.C. § 2332 that caused the deaths and injury of more than 36 individuals at the
Inland Regional Center in San Bernadino.
12
13
247. Defendants provided these services and equipment to ISIS, knowing that they
14
were to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, criminal acts including the
15
16
17
acts that injured the Plaintiffs.
248. As set forth more fully above, but for the material support and resources provided
18
19
by ISIS, the attack that injured the Plaintiffs would have been substantially more
20
difficult to implement.
21
22
23
249. By participating in the commission of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A that have
caused the Plaintiffs to be injured in his or her person, business or property,
24
25
26
Defendants are liable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333 for any and all damages that
Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of such injuries.
27
28
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
67
1
2
3
PROVISION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT AND RESOURCES TO A
DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IN VIOLATION
OF 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) AND 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a)
250. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of the foregoing
4
5
6
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
251. By knowingly (or with willful blindness) providing their social media platforms
7
8
9
10
and communications services, including use of computer and communications
equipment, for the benefit of ISIS, Defendants have provided material support and
resources to a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under the Antiterrorism
11
12
13
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2339B(a)(1).
252. Defendants knew of (or was willfully blind to) ISIS’ terrorist activities.
14
253. Defendants knew (or was willfully blind to the fact) that ISIS had been designated
15
16
17
a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States Government.
254. The Services and support that Defendants purposefully, knowingly or with willful
18
19
blindness provided to ISIS constitute material support to the preparation and
20
carrying out of acts of international terrorism, including the attack in which the
21
Plaintiffs were killed or injured.
22
23
24
255. The Defendants’ provision of material support to ISIS was a proximate cause of
the injury inflicted on Plaintiffs.
25
26
27
256. Defendants’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B proximately caused the damages to
Plaintiffs described herein.
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
68
1
2
257. By knowingly (or with willful blindness) providing material support to a
designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, Defendants are therefore civilly liable
3
4
5
for damages to Plaintiffs for his injuries pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a).
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
6
7
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
8
9
10
258. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the foregoing allegations with the same force
and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
11
12
259. Defendants engaged in negligent behavior by providing services to ISIS.
13
260. Defendants’ acts of providing services to ISIS constituted a willful violation of
14
15
federal statutes, and thus amounted to a willful violation of a statutory standard.
16
17
18
19
261. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants as
alleged hereinabove, Plaintiffs has suffered severe emotional distress, and
therefore Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for Plaintiffs’ severe emotional
20
21
22
distress and related damages.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
24
WRONGFUL DEATH
25
26
27
262. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing allegations with the same
force and effect as if more fully set forth herein.
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
69
1
2
263. Each of the Defendants’ provides services to ISIS that, among other things,
substantially assist and contribute to ISIS’s ability to carry out its terrorist
3
4
5
activities.
264. As set forth more fully above, but for the assistance provided by the
6
Defendants’ the terrorist attack that killed each of Plaintiffs’ Decedents
7
8
9
herein, would have been substantially more difficult to implement.
265. The conduct of each Defendant party was unreasonable and outrageous and
10
11
exceeds the bounds usually tolerated by decent society, and was done
12
willfully, maliciously and deliberately, or with reckless indifference to the
13
life of the victims of ISIS’s terrorist activity, Plaintiffs herein.
14
15
266. The conduct of each Defendant was a direct, foreseeable and proximate cause
16
of the wrongful deaths of each of Plaintiffs’ Decedents and therefore the
17
18
19
Defendants’ are liable to Plaintiffs for their wrongful deaths.
267. Each of the Defendants actions were undertaken willfully, wantonly,
20
maliciously and in reckless disregard for plaintiff’s rights, and as a direct,
21
22
23
foreseeable and proximate result thereof plaintiffs suffered economic and
emotional damage in a total amount to be proven at trial, therefore plaintiffs
24
25
26
27
seek punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Defendants from
similar future wrongful conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
70
1
1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court:
2
3
a)
Accept jurisdiction over this action;
b)
Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs for
4
5
6
7
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
8
9
10
c)
Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs for treble
damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333;
11
12
13
14
15
d)
Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs for any and
all costs sustained in connection with the prosecution of this action, including
attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2333;
16
17
18
e)
Order any equitable relief to which Plaintiffs might be entitled;
f)
Enter an Order declaring that Defendants have violated, and are
19
20
21
continuing to violate, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq.; and
22
23
g)
Grant such other and further relief as justice requires.
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
71
1
2
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
3
4
Dated: December 1, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
5
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
By: /s/ Keith L. Altman
Keith L. Altman, (CA 257309)
Solomon M. Radner (MI P73653
– pro hac vice to be applied for)
26700 Lahser Road., Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
(516) 456-5885
kaltman@excololaw.com
sradner@excololaw.com
1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC
14
15
/s/ Ari Kresch
Ari Kresch (MI P29593 – pro hac
vice to be applied for)
26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
Southfield, MI 48033
(800) 529-3476
akresch@1800lawfirm.com
16
17
18
19
20
LAW OFFICE OF THEIDA
SALAZAR
Theida Salazar, SBN 295547
2140 N Hollywood Way
#7192
Burbank, CA 91510
Telephone: (818)433-7290
salazarlawgroup@gmail.com
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
72
1
2
VERIFICATION
3
4
I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I have read the foregoing complaint,
5
6
7
and know its contents.
I am the attorney for Plaintiffs to this action. Such parties are absent from the
8
9
10
11
county where I have my office and is unable to verify the document described above.
For that reason, I am making this verification for and on behalf of the Plaintiffs. I am
informed and believe on that ground allege the matters stated in said document are true.
12
13
14
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
15
16
Executed on December 1, 2017 at Southfield, MI.
17
Respectfully Submitted,
18
EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
By: /s/ Keith L. Altman
Keith L. Altman, (CA 257309)
26700 Lahser Road., Suite 401
Southfield, MI 48033
(516) 456-5885
kaltman@excololaw.com
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages, Clayborn v. Twitter, Google, and Facebook
73
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?