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)

Download PDF
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?