Angelillo v. Facebook

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 26 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Facebook. Signed by Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle on 10/18/2024. (ea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN ANGELILLO,
Plaintiff
v.
FACEBOOK,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-1078

(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.

INTRODUCTION
John Angelillo (“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se negligence action against

Facebook1 (“Defendant”), in which he seeks damages for Facebook’s failure to
stop its users from posting and sharing defamatory statements about Plaintiff, and
Facebook’s failure to remove the defamatory statements from its website.
Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion requesting that Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint be dismissed under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff fails to allege any basis under
which the Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant and any
defamation claim is barred by 47 U.S.C. §230.2

1

Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.) filed this motion to dismiss and
a Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Doc. 25).
2
Defendant also asserts that dismissal is required because the case is timebarred and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because we find
adequate reasons to dismiss on other grounds, we do not reach these two defenses.
Page 1 of 21

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 26) will
be granted. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be dismissed without leave
to amend, and this case will be closed.
II.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff alleges that, on or around March 20, 2021, he struck up a

conversation with a sixteen-year-old female who worked at a store where he shops.
(Doc. 13, p. 4). He alleges that the young woman told him that she had been
sexually abused by her father and was suicidal. Id. The young woman also asked
Plaintiff for help. Id. Plaintiff states that he gave her some “directives.” Id. This
interaction upset the young woman’s father and apparently inspired him to post
defamatory statements about Plaintiff on Facebook. (Doc. 13, p. 3). Those
statements included accusations that Plaintiff gave the woman “a note, a condom,
or a joint.” (Doc. 13, p. 4). The young woman’s father also accused Plaintiff of
being a pedophile, rapist, and serial killer. Id. Once posted, those statements were
viewed by others, and shared. (Doc. 13, p. 3) (alleging others took part in and
“expanded” the defamation).
After these allegations circulated, the Pike County District Attorney’s Office
“put together a case” against Plaintiff. Id. He alleges that the Pike County District
Attorney’s Office, and his public defender, “railroaded” and “threatened” him to
enter into a plea agreement with “the option of a lot of time.” Id.

Page 2 of 21

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff, an inmate in state custody, initiated this pro se
civil action against Defendant. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff sought and was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 2, 6). Plaintiff’s original and amended
complaints were reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and it was found
that they did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Docs. 1, 7, 8,
12). Plaintiff was afforded leave to amend, and on July 26, 2023, submitted a
second amended complaint. (Doc. 13). Neither the legal claims alleged, nor the
facts they are based on are clearly set forth in this pleading. Throughout his second
amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that this is a case of “slander and defamation
of character,” but suggests that it was the young woman’s father and “others,” and
not Defendant who slandered and defamed him. He appears to allege that
Defendant was negligent for allowing that slander and defamation to occur and
was negligent for allowing it to persist.
As relief, Plaintiff requests that the defamatory information be removed
from the internet and seeks sixty-eight million dollars in money damages. (Doc.
13, pp. 2, 11).3

3

On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his second amended
complaint requesting additional damages. We will not consider Plaintiff’s
supplement, however, because he did not seek leave of Court to file it. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(d). Even if we had, however, these additional requests for relief would
not change the outcome in this case.
Page 3 of 21

On September 25, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 26).
Along with its motion, Defendant filed a brief in support. (Doc. 28). On October 5,
2023, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff does not, however,
meaningfully respond to any of Defendant’s arguments in his brief. Defendant did
not file a reply. Defendants motion is fully briefed and is now ready to resolve.
III.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Before beginning our analysis, we will review the legal standards for

evaluating motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and will discuss our obligation to construe Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint and brief liberally.
A.

RULE 12(B)(2): DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
“pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction.” Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure authorizes dismissal when allegations of personal jurisdiction are
insufficient or absent.
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s ability to assert judicial power over
parties and bind them by its adjudication. Where that power is absent, a lawsuit
cannot proceed. “Once challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing

Page 4 of 21

personal jurisdiction.”4 If the court “does not conduct [an] evidentiary hearing . . .
[the] plaintiff need only plead [a] prima facie case” of jurisdiction to defeat a
motion to dismiss.5 This burden is satisfied where a plaintiff presents facts that, if
true, would permit the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In
deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without an
evidentiary hearing, the court “must accept all of the plaintiff’s allegations as true
and construe disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff.”6 “Of course, by accepting a
plaintiff’s facts as true when a motion to dismiss is originally made, a court is not
precluded from revisiting the issue if it appears the facts alleged to support
jurisdiction are in dispute.”7
B.

RULE 12(B)(6): DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a “pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes full or partial dismissal of a pleading where
that statement is defective. “The defendant bears the burden of showing that no

4

O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., 496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted).
5
Carteret Sav. Bank v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 142 n.1 (3d Cir. 1992)
(citations omitted).
6
Id. (citations omitted).
7
Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324, 331 (3d Cir. 2009).
Page 5 of 21

claim has been presented.”8 To assess the sufficiency of a complaint when
dismissal is sought under Rule 12(b)(6), a court should: (1) take note of the
elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify mere conclusions
which are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether the
complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, could plausibly satisfy the elements
of a legal claim.9
In order for his or her allegations to be taken as true, a plaintiff must provide
some factual ground for relief, which “requires more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”10 To
state a claim, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation
that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element[s].”11 “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.”12 Thus, courts “need not credit a claimant’s ‘bald
assertions’ or ‘legal conclusions’ when deciding a motion to dismiss.”13 The court
also need not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that he or she has not

8

Hedges v. U.S., 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005).
Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011).
10
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
11
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
12
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
13
Morse v. Lower Marion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)
(quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d
Cir. 1997)).
9

Page 6 of 21

alleged.14 “To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must . . . set out sufficient
factual matter to show that the claim is facially plausible.”15
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”16 The court must accept as true all allegations in the
complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.17 This “presumption of truth
attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient ‘factual matter’ to
render them ‘plausible on [their] face.’”18 The plausibility determination is contextspecific and does not impose a heightened pleading requirement.19
C.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PRO SE FILINGS

Litigants proceeding without out counsel are commonly referred to as “pro
se” litigants. The Court is required to construe pro se filings liberally. This means
that “[w]e read ‘the pro se party’s papers liberally and interpret them to raise the
14

Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of
Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
15
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1949).
16
Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK
Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010).
17
Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d
Cir. 1994).
18
Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir.
2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (alternations in original).
19
Id. at 347.
Page 7 of 21

strongest arguments suggested therein.”20 The Court cannot, however, function as a
pro se litigant’s advocate.21 Moreover, a pro se litigant is “not relieved from the
rules of procedure and the requirements of substantive law.”22 “At the end of the
day, they cannot flout procedural rules—they must abide by the same rules that
apply to all other litigants.”23
IV.

ANALYSIS
In its motion and brief, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second amended
complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff does not allege any basis under
which this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and because
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars Plaintiff’s claims. We agree
that Plaintiff does not allege any basis under which we could exercise jurisdiction
over Defendant, and even if he did Defendant would be immune from liability
under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Because these findings
compel dismissal of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, we will not address
Defendant’s remaining arguments that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations and that Plaintiff failed to plead a plausible claim.
20

Talbert v. Corr. Dental Assocs., No. CV 18-5112, 2020 WL 6530317, at
*1 n.7 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2020) (quoting Hodson v. Alpine Manor, Inc., 512
F.Supp.2d 373, 384 (W.D. Pa. 2007)).
21
Lourdes G. on behalf of R.E.G. v. O’Malley, No. 2:22-CV-6216, 2024 WL
3289647 (D.N.J. July 3, 2024) (quoting United States v. Peppers, 482 F.App’x
702, 704 (3d Cir. 2012)).
22
Parkell v. Danberg, 83 F.3d 313, 326 n. 6 (3d Cir. 2016).
23
Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
Page 8 of 21

Before turning to Defendant’s arguments, however, we will first discuss the
nature of the legal claims asserted in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint.
A.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
COMPLAINT

OF

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is twelve pages long. The first seven
pages are handwritten on lined paper. (Doc. 13, pp. 1-7). In those seven pages,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently allowed third parties to post and share
defamatory statements about him, and negligently failed to remove those
statements from its website. Id. The eighth page of the second amended complaint
is a certificate of service. (Doc. 13, p. 9). Pages nine through twelve are a form
complaint designed for prisoners filing civil rights lawsuits. (Doc. 13, pp. 9-12).
Plaintiff repeats some of his allegations on this form, and requests damages. On
that form, there is a choice of two statutes to file the claim under: 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983—State Officials, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331—Federal Officials. Defendant,
however, is neither a state nor federal official. Plaintiff was thus faced with a
confusing choice. Plaintiff selected 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This statute explains that
federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
In their brief, Defendants interpret Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as
arising under state law only. (Doc. 28, p. 10). Plaintiff does not dispute this
characterization of his second amended complaint in his response. (Doc. 30).
Page 9 of 21

Therefore, we will construe Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as asserting only
state law torts against Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant resides in
California and seeks more than $75,000.00 in damages. Thus, this case is before us
based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
B.

PLAINTIFF DOES NOT ALLEGE FACTS THAT PLAUSIBLY SHOW THIS
COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be
dismissed because Plaintiff did not adequately plead any basis for this Court to
exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. He did not, however, supply any
information related to personal jurisdiction and does not assert any legal theory
under which this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (Doc.
30). Thus, as it pertains to Defendant’s jurisdictional argument, Plaintiff appears to
rest on the allegations set forth in the second amended complaint.
There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: specific personal
jurisdiction, and general personal jurisdiction. To avoid dismissal, Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint must include facts under which this Court could
exercise one of these two types of personal jurisdiction.
First, we will discuss whether Plaintiff pleaded facts that would allow the
Court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Specific personal

Page 10 of 21

jurisdiction allows a court to hear claims “deriving from, or connected with, the
very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.”24
Specific jurisdiction exists “when the plaintiff’s claim is related to or
arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Mellon Bank
(East) PSFS[, Nat. Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217. 1221 (3d Cir.
1992)]; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Courts
apply a three-part inquiry to determine whether specific jurisdiction
exists: (1) “the defendant must have ‘purposefully directed its
activities’ at the forum;” (2) “the litigation must ‘arise out of or relate
to’ at least one of those activities;” and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction
must “otherwise comport[ ] with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’”
O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 317 (internal citations omitted). Even a single
act can support specific jurisdiction, so long as it creates a “substantial
connection” with the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471
U.S. 462, 475-76 n.18, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985).25
If the Court finds that the above-quoted factors are satisfied, it may exercise
specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation, like Defendant. The
allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and brief, however,
do not satisfy these factors. Construing all relevant allegations in Plaintiff’s
pleading in the light most favorable to him, Plaintiff pleads that Defendant has the
following contacts with Pennsylvania: (1) it operates a social media website that is
accessible in Pennsylvania; (2) Defendant’s failure to stop individuals from posting
or sharing defamatory posts caused injury to Plaintiff in Pennsylvania; and (3)

24

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919
(2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
25
Camber Spine Techs. v. Intermed Res. TN, LLC, No. 22-3648, 2023 WL
5182597, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2023).
Page 11 of 21

Defendant’s failure to take down the defamatory posts caused injury to Plaintiff in
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 13).
The first element of the test requires the Court to consider whether
Defendant purposefully directed the activities at issue in this case at Pennsylvania.
In applying the purposeful direction requirement to cases involving websites, the
Third Circuit has explained that “the mere operation of a commercially interactive
web site” does not suffice.26 The general availability of a website accessible to all
who seek it out, but targeted at no one, does not satisfy the purposeful direction
requirement.27 “Other courts addressing similar situations have also concluded that
specific personal jurisdiction over [Defendant] was lacking notwithstanding the
fact that Facebook was available to and used by residents of those states and
allegedly caused harm in those states.”28 Here, Defendant’s website is generally
available. Plaintiff does not allege anything that suggests Defendant specifically
targeted Pennsylvania residents by failing to moderate the content of information
posted to its website. Thus, the allegations in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

26

Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 454 (3d Cir. 2003).
Romero v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 7:23-CV-3306-TMC-KFM, 2024
WL 1554826, at *4 (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2024) (citing Conrad v. Benson, No. 9:20CV-1811, 2020 WL 4754332, at *4 (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2020)), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 7:23-CV-3306-TMC, 2024 WL 3466403 (D.S.C.
July 19, 2024).
28
Id. at *4 (collecting cases).
27

Page 12 of 21

and brief do not satisfy the purposeful direction requirement. Because this element
is not satisfied, we need not address the second or third element. Plaintiff has not
met his burden of alleging sufficient facts that, if true, would permit the court to
exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Second, we will discuss whether Plaintiff pleaded facts that would allow the
Court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over Defendant. General personal
jurisdiction allows a court “to hear any and all claims against” a defendant.29
The Supreme Court has held that a state and thus a federal district
court in the state has general jurisdiction to hear any and all diversity
claims against a corporation but only where it is at home. The two socalled paradigmatic fora are where the corporation is incorporated and
where it has its principal place of business. The Supreme Court,
however, has not ruled out other exceptional situations where a
defendant’s continuous and systematic activity is at such a high level
“so as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in the forum
state.” Daimler, 134 571 U.S. at 122, 134 S.Ct. 746 (quoting
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915,
919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)).
Recently, the Supreme Court has handed down Mallory v. Norfolk
Southern Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122, 143 S. Ct. 2028, 216 L.Ed.2d 815
(2023). There, the plaintiff sued his former employer, the defendant
railroad, in the state court in Pennsylvania to recover damages for
negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Plaintiff was
not living in Pennsylvania and his injuries did not occur here. Plaintiff
instead was residing in Virginia. The railroad was also incorporated
and had its principal place of business in Virginia but had extensive
and regular operations in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held that
defendant consented to the general jurisdiction of the state court over
claims against it when it registered to do business as a foreign
29

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Page 13 of 21

corporation and had appointed an agent to receive service of process
in the Commonwealth. The Court grounded its decision on a
Pennsylvania statute which provided that the tribunals of the
Commonwealth have general personal jurisdiction over an entity
based on its “qualification as a foreign corporation under the laws of
this Commonwealth,” that is one that is “a registered foreign
corporation.” See 42 Pa. Stat. Am. § 5301(a)(2) (i); Mallory, 143
S. Ct. at 2037.30
Plaintiff does not allege Defendant has its principal place of business in
Pennsylvania and does not allege it is incorporated in Pennsylvania. Thus, we
cannot reasonably base general personal jurisdiction on the location of Defendant’s
principal place or business or state of incorporation.31
Generally, the operation of an interactive website, without more is not so
substantial that it may be comparable to being at “home” in a state where it is
neither located nor incorporated.

32

This case is no exception. Plaintiff vaguely

alleges that Defendant operates a social media website that is accessible in
Pennsylvania. These general allegations are not enough to plausibly demonstrate a
high level of systematic and continuous activity in Pennsylvania such that
Defendant could be considered “at home” here. Thus, Plaintiff does not allege
there is any exceptional circumstance under which we could exercise general

30

Simon v. First Sav. Bank of Indiana, 692 F.Supp.3d 479, 482-83 (E.D. Pa.

2023).
31

We also note that Defendant’s Rule 7.1 Disclosure indicates that
Defendant is a publicly held corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware (Doc. 25) and Plaintiff alleges that Facebook operates in California.
32
See e.g., Romero, 2024 WL 1554826, at *6.
Page 14 of 21

personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations do not support general
jurisdiction because he “does not allege Meta has consented to jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania.” (Doc. 28, p. 14). Defendant is correct that Plaintiff does not allege
Defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, for example by
alleging Defendant is registered in Pennsylvania as a foreign corporation.33 Thus,
Plaintiff does not allege facts under which the Court could exercise general
personal jurisdiction over Defendant based on its consent.
For the reasons we explained herein, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient
factual matter that would allow this Court to exercise specific or general personal
jurisdiction over Defendant, therefore we will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss
this case. Although it is likely this pleading defect could be remedied, conducting
an evidentiary hearing, permitting jurisdictional discovery, or permitting Plaintiff
to file a third amended complaint to cure it would be futile in this case. Even if
Plaintiff were to plead sufficient facts to show personal jurisdiction, his claims that
Defendant negligently permitted others to post defamatory statements about him,
negligently failed to remove those posts, and any other tort claim based on the
33

“Pennsylvania expressly permits its courts to exercise ‘general personal
jurisdiction’ over registered foreign corporations 42 Pa. Cons. Stat § 5301(a)(2)(i),
and the Supreme Court has explained that a foreign corporation consents to this
general personal jurisdiction by complying with Pennsylvania’s registration
requirements.” Vonbergen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 705 F.Supp.3d 440, 448 (E.D.
Pa. 2023) (citing Mallory, 600 U.S. 122, 134-35).
Page 15 of 21

allegations contained in his second amended complaint, would be barred by
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
C.

SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, after he spoke with a
troubled young woman, her father became upset and posted defamatory statements
about Plaintiff on Facebook. Others saw the posts and shared them. As a result,
Plaintiff was harassed, threatened, arrested, pleaded guilty to a crime, and is now in
prison. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had an obligation to protect him from false and
defamatory statements that its users posted, and that its failure to protect Plaintiff
was negligent. The objectionable statements at issue involve accusations that
Plaintiff is a pedophile, sexual predator, or a serial killer.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims against it should be dismissed
because they are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Plaintiff does not meaningfully respond to this argument in his brief and
does not argue that any exception to this bar applies.
In 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
to promote the internet.34 In doing so,
It specifically sought to preserve “the vibrant and competitive free
market”—“unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” § 230(b)(2).
The Act also promoted filtering technology and the vigorous
34

Hepp v. Facebook, 14 F.4th 204, 208 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing 47 U.S.C.
§ 203(b)).
Page 16 of 21

enforcement of criminal obscenity laws. § 230(b)(5). In essence,
Congress fostered a largely unregulated free market online while
snuffing out certain objectionable content.35
As the Third Circuit explained in Hepp v. Facebook, “Section 230(c) strikes
the balance. It provides ‘Good Samaritan’ protection, which enables ‘blocking and
screening of offensive material.’”36 The statute states:
(1) TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER. No provider or
user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.
(2) CIVIL LIABILITY. No provider or user of an interactive
computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action . . . to restrict access to . . . objectionable . . .
[material]; or
(B) any action taken to enable . . . the technical means to restrict
access to material described in paragraph [A].37
“This provision bars attempts to treat websites as publishers or speakers of
content posted by others,” and “encourages companies to host and moderate thirdparty content by immunizing them from certain moderation decisions.”38 “In other
words, it forgoes some publisher liability and paves the way for service providers
to make their own moderation decisions.”39 It effectively “bars ‘lawsuits seeking to

35

Id.
Id.
37
47 U.S.C. § 230(b).
38
Hepp, 14 F.4th at 209 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)).
39
Id.
36

Page 17 of 21

hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial
functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter
content.’”40 Thus, “Section 230 immunizes from liability (1) an interactive
computer service provider (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or
speaker of information (3) provided by another information content provider.”41
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred because, taking the allegations
in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as true, each of these three conditions
have been met.
First, we must consider whether Defendant is an interactive computer
service provider.42 “Courts in the Third and other Circuits have held that websites
and social media are considered interactive computer service providers under

40

Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465, 471 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)).
41
Elansari v. Meta, Inc., No. CV 21-5325, 2022 WL 4635860, at *6 (E.D.
Pa. Sept. 30, 2022) (quoting Putt v. TripAdvisor Inc., No. CV 20-3836, 2021 WL
242470, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2021)), aff’d, No. 22-3060, 2024 WL 163080 (3d
Cir. Jan. 16, 2024).
42
Section 230(f)(2) provides the definition of an interactive computer
service:
The term “interactive computer service” means any information
service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables
computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including
specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet
and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or
educational institutions.
47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2).
Page 18 of 21

Section 230.”43 The facts alleged in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint
demonstrate that Defendant operates as a social media website. (Doc. 13).
Therefore, we find that Defendant is an interactive computer service provider.
Second, we must consider whether Plaintiff is attempting to treat Defendant
as a publisher or speaker of information. A plaintiff treats a defendant as a
publisher or speaker of information where he or she seeks to hold a defendant
“liable for ‘a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether
to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter content.’”44 Decisions related to the
monitoring, screening, and deletion of content from a computer service provider’s
network are “quintessentially related to a publisher’s role.”45 Here, to support his
negligence claims Plaintiff alleges that Defendant allowed people to post
defamatory information about him on their website, and did not remove the
information. (Doc. 13). The conduct at issue therefore falls squarely into a
publisher’s traditional editorial functions. Therefore, we find that Plaintiff is
attempting to treat Defendant as a publisher or speaker of information.
Third, we must consider whether the content at issue was provided by a third
party content provider. This factor is met where a third party (and not the

43

Elansari, 2022 WL 4635860, at *6.
Id. (quoting Green, 318 F.3d at 471).
45
Green, 318 F.3d at 471.
44

Page 19 of 21

defendant) creates the content at issue.46 Plaintiff alleges the content at issue was
posted by the father of a young woman he attempted to help. Nothing in Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint suggests Defendant itself made any statement about
Plaintiff. Therefore, we find that the content at issue came from a third party
source and was not created by Defendant.
Because all three elements to establish immunity from liability under
Section 230 are met, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims against it will be granted.
D.

LEAVE TO AMEND

Although Plaintiff does not request it, Defendant argues that further leave to
amend in this case should be denied. It argues that granting further opportunities to
amend in this case would be futile, and we agree. Granting Plaintiff leave to amend
his state tort claims in this case would be futile, as Defendant is immune from
liability under the Communications Decency Act. Amendment could not cure this
defect. Moreover, Plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend sua sponte on
two occasions. Despite being given these opportunities, he has not pleaded a
plausible claim. Therefore, Plaintiff will not be afforded leave to amend in this
case.
46

See Elansari, 2022 WL 4635860, at *6 (finding that the third factor was
met where the Defendant did not create or develop the content at issue).
Page 20 of 21

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained herein, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 26) is
GRANTED. An appropriate order will be issued.

Date: October 18, 2024

BY THE COURT
s/William I. Arbuckle
William I. Arbuckle
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 21 of 21