SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — A Northern District of California judge on Monday wiped out the Tate brothers' $50 million lawsuit against Meta Platforms over the termination of their six Instagram accounts, ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields the company from every claim the controversial media personalities brought, and that their First Amendment theory collapsed because Meta is a private actor, not a government one.
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Meta's motion to dismiss without leave to amend, finding that Andrew and Tristan Tate — whom their own complaint describes as "controversial," "internationally known entrepreneurs, commentators, and media personalities" — could not escape Section 230's broad immunity no matter how they styled their twelve causes of action.
Meta banned the brothers for promoting "dangerous individuals or organizations" or for "inciting misogyny," according to the complaint. The Tates countered that the deplatforming "was part of a broader, ideologically motivated campaign, carried out under governmental and corporate pressure, to marginalize dissenting or controversial viewpoints — particularly those of prominent male figures criticizing modern social norms." They further alleged that the "deplatforming not only silenced the Plaintiffs but immediately severed them from critical commercial tools and millions of followers causing them substantial and irreplaceable financial loss and damage."
Corley was unmoved. Because every claim, however labeled, challenged Meta's decision to remove the brothers' content, the conduct "can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online" — the precise conduct Section 230 makes immune, she wrote, quoting the Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com.
The brothers' contract theory fared no better, and for an additional reason that emerged at oral argument on April 23. The Tates pointed to three complaint paragraphs as the source of Meta's alleged promises to provide notice and an appeal right before terminating accounts. When Corley pressed counsel on those paragraphs, the lawyers conceded that the quoted policy language does not actually appear in the Terms of Use or Community Standards attached as exhibits to their own complaint. After an hour of oral argument that included "many minutes of silence while Plaintiffs' counsel scrolled through all the potentially relevant documents on his computer," counsel still could not locate any provision supporting the promised notice and appeal rights.
The Section 1983 First Amendment claim failed on a separate, independent ground. The First Amendment prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech and does not prohibit private abridgment of speech, Corley noted, citing the Ninth Circuit's 2024 decision in Children's Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc., which itself quoted the Supreme Court's ruling in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. The Tates alleged Meta acted at the direction of "government officials," "U.S. and international authorities," "federal agencies, including the FBI," and unnamed "state actors" — but at oral argument, Corley wrote, "Plaintiffs conceded their vague allegations were insufficient to allege Meta acted in concert with a government actor." The complaint also failed the threshold requirement of alleging conduct under color of state law, since the only government actors named were federal, not state, agencies.
Corley denied leave to amend across the board, finding amendment would be futile. On the contract claims, the Tates had no good-faith basis to allege Meta promised advance notice or appeal rights. On the Section 1983 claim, counsel could not identify the state actors allegedly involved "any more than they could identify the federal actors involved beyond vague reference to the FBI." The court cited Rule 11's objective-reasonableness standard and noted it does not permit a "pure heart, empty head" defense.
The Tates filed the suit originally in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Meta removed it to the Central District of California and then transferred it north to San Francisco.
At the time Meta terminated their accounts, the brothers were "subject[] to intense international scrutiny" following their house arrest in Romania in connection with "a human trafficking and sexual exploitation" investigation, according to the complaint.