Devin Nunes’ Lawsuit Against Twitter Could Turn Into The Company’s Worst Nightmare: A Virginia judge ruled last week that the Republican lawmaker's lawsuit against Twitter could proceed to trial in Virginia, meaning the company may finally be forced to disclose evidence of bias against conservative users.
Through his work exposing the faulty foundation of the Russian collusion hoax, Nunes attracted the ire of left-wing dark money groups and Democratic activists ...
The suit against Twitter alleges negligence by the social media company in knowingly allowing and supporting the defamation to continue on its platform.
...
Twitter ignored the defamation and impersonation, which violated the company’s own policies and terms of use, for months on end despite being notified over and over that the accounts were violating the law and Twitter’s terms of service.
...
As a result of Marshall’s order, the case will now proceed to trial, and Twitter will be subject to full-blown discovery by Nunes and his legal team.
...
Full discovery could reveal that Twitter’s claims of neutral algorithms and no political ideological bias might not have been based in fact. Even worse for Twitter, the state of Virginia does not grant an automatic right to appeal a trial court’s ruling while the case is in process.
...
Marshall, the trial judge, also rejected Twitter’s argument that the global tech company with operations and users in nearly 200 countries would be significantly inconvenienced if it were required to litigate in Virginia instead of California, where its headquarters are located. The implication of the venue ruling means that Twitter could potentially be subject to negligence lawsuits throughout the country, wherever harm is delivered or felt as a result of the company’s failure to enforce its own rules and policies.
Additionally, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which has traditionally provided internet service providers and third-party publishing platforms safe harbor from civil liability claims, may not apply in this particular case given the nature of Nunes’ claims against the company. Rather than directly alleging that Twitter itself should be treated as the publisher of the content at issue, a claim which would be barred under the CDA, Nunes instead claims that Twitter selectively and deliberately neglected to enforce its own policies regarding the accounts that targeted Nunes for defamation. Federal courts have ruled that Section 230 of the CDA does not shield tech companies from so-called promissory estoppel claims, which arise from a failure to provide promised products or services. Nunes will also likely argue that it is up to a jury to determine based on facts that will arise from discovery whether Twitter was acting as a content-neutral third-party service provider subject to the CDA’s safe harbor, or whether it was acting as a publisher itself by manipulating its rules and algorithms to promote certain political content.
Nunes need not even win in court for Twitter to face significant legal and enterprise liabilities going forward given the risks that discovery poses to Twitter. Depending on what is unearthed during the discovery process, Twitter could eventually find itself facing class-action lawsuits for securities fraud if the company made claims to investors or Congress that were contradicted by internal documents.
...
Twitter’s response will have ramifications far beyond its own business. How this case shakes out could shape the legal environment for social media companies for years or decades to come.
The suit against Twitter alleges negligence by the social media company in knowingly allowing and supporting the defamation to continue on its platform.
...
Twitter ignored the defamation and impersonation, which violated the company’s own policies and terms of use, for months on end despite being notified over and over that the accounts were violating the law and Twitter’s terms of service.
...
As a result of Marshall’s order, the case will now proceed to trial, and Twitter will be subject to full-blown discovery by Nunes and his legal team.
...
Full discovery could reveal that Twitter’s claims of neutral algorithms and no political ideological bias might not have been based in fact. Even worse for Twitter, the state of Virginia does not grant an automatic right to appeal a trial court’s ruling while the case is in process.
...
Marshall, the trial judge, also rejected Twitter’s argument that the global tech company with operations and users in nearly 200 countries would be significantly inconvenienced if it were required to litigate in Virginia instead of California, where its headquarters are located. The implication of the venue ruling means that Twitter could potentially be subject to negligence lawsuits throughout the country, wherever harm is delivered or felt as a result of the company’s failure to enforce its own rules and policies.
Additionally, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which has traditionally provided internet service providers and third-party publishing platforms safe harbor from civil liability claims, may not apply in this particular case given the nature of Nunes’ claims against the company. Rather than directly alleging that Twitter itself should be treated as the publisher of the content at issue, a claim which would be barred under the CDA, Nunes instead claims that Twitter selectively and deliberately neglected to enforce its own policies regarding the accounts that targeted Nunes for defamation. Federal courts have ruled that Section 230 of the CDA does not shield tech companies from so-called promissory estoppel claims, which arise from a failure to provide promised products or services. Nunes will also likely argue that it is up to a jury to determine based on facts that will arise from discovery whether Twitter was acting as a content-neutral third-party service provider subject to the CDA’s safe harbor, or whether it was acting as a publisher itself by manipulating its rules and algorithms to promote certain political content.
Nunes need not even win in court for Twitter to face significant legal and enterprise liabilities going forward given the risks that discovery poses to Twitter. Depending on what is unearthed during the discovery process, Twitter could eventually find itself facing class-action lawsuits for securities fraud if the company made claims to investors or Congress that were contradicted by internal documents.
...
Twitter’s response will have ramifications far beyond its own business. How this case shakes out could shape the legal environment for social media companies for years or decades to come.