Yoder v. Zuckerberg, 3:24-cv-6200 - Filed Complaint

Case 3:24-cv-06200 Document 1 Filed 09/01/24 Page 1 of 88
1 Mike Yoder, Esq. (pro se)

CITIZEN AG
2 Email: filings@citizenag.org
3 5601 Palmer Way, Ste D
Carlsbad, CA 92010
4 Telephone: (442) 427-8136
5 Pro se Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
MIKE YODER, ESQ., Case No.: 3:24-cv-6200
8
9 Plaintiff,
1. Violation of the First Amendment
10 to the United States Constitution
v.
2. Declaratory Judgment
11
MARK ZUCKERBERG, an individual,
12 META PLATFORMS, INC., KAMALA
13 HARRIS, individually and in her official
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
capacity as Vice President of the United
14 States, ROB FLAHERTY, individually,
15 and in his official capacity as former
Trial Date: None Set
White House Digital Director,
16
17 Defendants.
18
COMPLAINT
19
Plaintiff Michael Yoder, pro se, files this Complaint against Defendants Mark
20
Zuckerberg (“Zuckerberg”) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively, “Meta”), as well as
21
Defendants Kamala Harris, individually as a candidate running for President of the
22
United States, and in her official capacities as former United States Senator and
23
current capacity as Vice President of the United States (“Harris”), and Rob
24
Flaherty, individually, and in his official capacity as former White House Digital
25
Director (“Flaherty”), (collectively, the “Biden Administration”), for violations of
26
Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights and pursuant to the state action doctrine, on the
27
grounds set forth as follows:
28
1
COMPLAINT
1 NATURE OF THE CASE

2 This action is brought to obtain a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated
3 Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to Free Speech by silencing him and censoring his
4 political speech about topics that include inter alia the numerous lawsuits Plaintiff has
5 filed against President Biden and every Secretary in his Cabinet to halt the enforcement
6 of Biden’s federal vaccine mandate1 and to hold the Administration accountable for its
7 religiously motivated retaliation and discrimination that followed in the months and years
8 thereafter.2 Plaintiff also files this action to obtain injunctive relief against the continued
9 weaponization of federal power to silence American speech pursuant to the First
10 Amendment and state action doctrine.3
11 On August 30, 2024, Kamala Harris made it clear that she intends to continue
12 suppressing constitutionally protected speech, stating:
13
[Elon Musk] has lost his privileges and [X] should be taken
14 down. And the bottom line is that you can't say that you have one
rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter [sic]. The
15
same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility
16 that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power.
They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people
17
without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.4
18
19
Not only does Harris fail to recognize that constitutionally protected Free Speech
20
is a right ––not a “privilege” as she claims in the above rant; even worse, Harris and her
21
1
See Executive Order No. 14043; see also Church v. Biden, et al., 1:21-cv-2815 (D.D.C.) (action
22
brought to prohibit enforcement of E.O. 14043, preventing government officials from terminating
23 federal workers whose religious accommodation requests were ignored).
2
See e.g., Desmarais v. Granholm, et al., 1:24-cv-01541-ABJ (D.D.C.) (action alleging that the
24 agency’s refusal to respond to religious accommodation requests violates Title VII; motion to dismiss,
denied).
25 3
The state action doctrine provides four tests by which state action under a Bivens claim for
deprivation of constitutional rights can be established: (1) the “public function test”, Julian v. Mission
26
Comm. Hosp., 11 Cal.App.5th 360 (2017); (2) the “joint action test”, Semerjyan v. Serv. Employees
27 Int’l Union Local 2015, 489 F.Supp.3d 1048 (2020); (3) the “state compulsion test”, id., and (4) the
“governmental nexus test”, Julian, 11 Cal. App. 5th at 360.
28 4
https://x.com/ClownWorld_/status/1829652525315944693.
2
COMPLAINT
1 campaign’s deputy director, Rob Flaherty––the Biden Administration official most
2 responsible for carrying out the largest censorship campaign to abridge American speech
3 in our nation’s history––have repeatedly vowed to suppress Free Speech and have no
4 intent of ceasing to do so, as explained in greater detail below.
5 There is no question: the constitutionally guaranteed protection against

6 governmental infringement upon Free Speech that has existed for more than a quarter-
7 millennium remains squarely in the crosshairs of extinction. Kamala Harris has
8 demonstrably proven for years that she will not hesitate to put her own political ambitions
9 and interests above the interests and constitutional rights and protections to which the
10 American people are guaranteed––the same people who coincidentally and ironically,
11 Harris claims to serve.
12 Boiled down to its essence, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief by way of the
13 forthcoming allegations and claims: (1) a declaratory judgment holding that Defendants’
14 actions suppressed Plaintiff’s speech and expression in violation of the First Amendment
15 either by way of Meta’s actions and the application of the state action doctrine, or because
16 the Biden Administration was so inextricably entwined with Meta that the abridgment of
17 Plaintiff’s speech is fairly tracible to the federal government and therefore the actions
18 complained of herein are the actions of the government itself; and (2) permanent
19 injunctive relief that enjoins Harris from interfering with the fundamental Free Speech
20 rights of Americans either by direct action or through enlisting private actors to abridge
21 free speech rights in hopes of circumventing liability for doing so.
22 To the extent the state action doctrine is somehow found to not apply under the
23 facts and circumstances alleged herein, it becomes evident and apparent that the doctrine
24 itself is nothing but illusory.
25 //
26 //
27 //
28
3
COMPLAINT
1 JURISDICTION & VENUE

2 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
3 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under the First and Fourteenth
4 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
5 2. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
6 1343(a) because this is an action to redress the deprivation of one or more rights secured
7 to Plaintiff by the Constitution of the United States or an Act of Congress that provides
8 for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States,
9 recover damages, and secure equitable and other relief under an Act of Congress
10 providing for the protection of civil rights.
11 3. This action is an actual controversy, and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
12 2202, this Court has authority to grant declaratory relief, and other relief, including
13 temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
14 4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §
15 1391 (b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim
16 occurred in this judicial district.
17 PARTIES
18 5. Plaintiff Mike Yoder, Esq. is an adult resident and citizen of California.
19 Plaintiff is one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose speech was censored and
20 removed by Meta––the Big Tech Giant that succumbed to the Biden Administration’s
21 pressure and significant coercion, to take action5 that silenced Americans.
22
23
24
25 5
Alternatively, Meta’s actions that removed Plaintiff’s posts and abridged his speech were taken in
joint concerted action with the Biden Administration or because the Biden Administration’s actions
26
were inextricably entwined with Meta. Regardless, and as explained below, Meta’s actions are
27 undoubtedly, at a minimum, fairly tracible to the Biden Administration and at all times relevant, the
Biden Administration was responsible for the actions taken by Meta.
28
4
COMPLAINT
1 6. Defendant Mark Zuckerberg is an adult resident of California and the

2 founder and CEO of Meta Platforms, Inc. He is sued in his individual and official
3 capacities at 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
4 7. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) is a social media company that,
5 along and at the direction of the federal government, co-manages and co-operates its
6 platforms including inter alia Meta and Instagram. Meta maintains its principal place
7 of business at 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA 94025 and at all times relevant to this
8 action, acted as a “state actor” under the state action doctrine (as more fully explained
9 below).
10 8. Defendant Kamala Harris (“Harris”) is the Vice President of the United
11 States and a former Senator from the State of California––a position she held until
12 January 20, 2021. Harris is sued in her individual and official capacities as a former
13 United States Senator and in her current roll as Vice President of the United States for
14 the Biden Administration.
15 9. Defendant Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”) is the former Digital Media
16 Director for the Biden Administration. Flaherty is sued in his official capacity.
17 PLAINTIFF’S SPEECH AT-ISSUE
18 10. Despite having not violated any of Meta’s rules, terms of service, or
19 policies, Meta took down Plaintiff’s informative social media posts on June 23, 2020,
20 June 28, July 25, August 30, 2020, September 22, and again on November 15, 2020.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
COMPLAINT
1 11. The only reason any such content moderation policies existed that
2 encompassed Plaintiff’s posts were the direct and proximate result of the Biden
3 Administration pressuring or coercing Meta to adopt, expand, or otherwise alter its
4 policies or means of enforcement.
5 12. Approximately one year later, and on the same day Biden announced the
6 unconstitutional federal vaccine mandate, Plaintiff announced he would be bringing a
7 federal lawsuit against Biden over the mandate to Facebook and Instagram profiles:
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 13. Plaintiff thereafter sued Biden, twice.

27
28
6
COMPLAINT
1 14. Inclusive of even the emotionally-charged colorful language Plaintiff used

2 in the heat of the times, not one word, one phrase, one sentence, or any portion of
3 Plaintiff’s speech falls outside the scope of speech our First Amendment protects.
4 15. Of course, Plaintiff is cognizant of the well-established fact that the First
5 Amendment applies to the government’s infringement of rights secured to Americans
6 under the United States Constitution; but governmental action can––and in this case,
7 does––attach constitutional constraints to actions taken by private entities under certain
8 circumstances, including those set forth under the state action doctrine.
9 16. As explained in greater detail below, Meta may have been the entity that
10 ultimately deleted Plaintiff’s posts and censored his speech; but absent the pressure and
11 significant coercion the Biden Administration placed upon Meta, Plaintiff’s speech
12 would not have been censored.
13 17. The state action doctrine makes unequivocally clear that constitutional
14 constraints will attach to a private entity’s action when that action is (1) the result of
15 pressure or significant coercion; (2) committed as part of a joint concerted action with
16 federal officials; or (3) “fairly attributable” to government actors––which here, are the
17 named defendants (collectively, the “Biden Administration”).
18 18. Indeed, it is “axiomatic” that the government may not “induce, encourage,
19 or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to
20 accomplish.” Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465 (1973) (quotations omitted).
21 19. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces
22 or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as
23 censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.” Knight First Amendment Inst., 141 S. Ct. at
24 1226 (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of
25 adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Id.
26 20. If these facts do not trigger the protections of Norwood and Knight, our
27 Supreme Court’s rulings, and the Constitution itself, appear to be nothing but illusory.
28
7
COMPLAINT
1 STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 21. On August 26, 2024, Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the “senior officials
3 from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured
4 [Meta] for months to censor certain COVID-19 content . . . and expressed a lot of
5 frustration with [Meta] when [it] didn’t agree.” This monthslong coercion-fueled
6 campaign to silence American speech resulted in Meta taking action it otherwise would
7 not have taken, “including [the] COVID-19-related changes [Meta] made to [its]
8 enforcement in the wake of this pressure.”6
9 I. THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S COVID-19 CENSORSHIP CRUSADE
10 22. On February 8, 2021, Meta publicly announced that it would begin
11 censoring anti-vaccine speech and anything related to the lab leak theory.
12 23. Shortly thereafter, White House Digital Director, Defendant Rob Flaherty
13 (“Flaherty”) emailed Meta7 to question whether it would “actually follow through” on
14 its censorship promises as articulated in the announcement.8
15 24. Meta responded by providing the White House with some initial materials
16 and set a meeting with the Biden Administration to take place on February 23, 2021.9
17 During the meeting, the White House provided “tough feedback” and insisted Meta
18 provide it with information on alleged “misinformation trends”, as well as statistics on
19 Meta’s removal of content, and information on what Meta was not removing.10
20 25. The next day, on February 24, 2021, Meta emailed the Biden
21 Administration to follow up on its “request for COVID-19 misinfo themes” that Meta
22
23
6
24 Mark Zuckerberg, Letter to Congressman Jim Jordan (Aug. 26, 2024).
7
“Meta” also encompasses any references to its two largest platforms: Meta and Instagram, absent
25 any legal or factually material distinction.
8
Emails from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Feb. 8 – 9, 2021); see Ex. 1.
26 9
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (Feb. 9, 2021, 5:57 PM); see Ex. 1; Emails between
27 White House staff and Meta personnel (Feb. 18 – Mar. 1, 2021); see Ex. 2; Internal Meta read out of
a call with the White House and HHS (Feb. 23, 2021, 10:04 AM); see Ex. 3.
28 10
Internal email between Meta personnel (Feb. 28, 2021, 8:07 AM); see Ex. 4.
8
COMPLAINT
1 was seeing on its platform.11 Meta told the Flaherty that it was “removing these claims
2 from our platforms,” including posts comparing COVID-19 to the flu.12
3 26. Flaherty replied, asking for more information about the prevalence of these
4 claims and Meta’s effectiveness in censoring them, stating, “Awesome. This is helpful.
5 Can you give us a sense of volume on these, and some metrics around the scale of
6 removal for each? Can you also give us a sense of misinformation that might be falling
7 outside of your removal policies? Goes without saying, just because it’s on your list for
8 removal hasn’t historically meant that it was removed, so I want to get a sense of the
9 state of play here!”13
10 27. In response, on February 28, 2021, Meta’s Public Policy team circulated
11 an internal memo to Meta leadership, with the subject line, “FOR DECISION: White
12 House Request on Covid Vaccine Misinfo Themes and Prevalence,” seeking
13 “guidance” on “what information [they] could share in a Covid misinformation briefing
14 with the White House scheduled” for March 1, 2021.14
15 28. In the memo, the Public Policy team explained how Meta had already
16 shared a list of recent themes that Meta was removing, referenced Flaherty’s question
17 about metrics around the “volume” and “scale of removal for each,” and further noted
18 that the Biden White House had “a strong perception that [Meta was] not doing enough,
19 and we want to respond to their clear requests when we can.”15
20 29. The Public Policy team believed that “sharing some breakdown for
21 prevalence of these four themes will help to build credibility with this hostile
22 audience.”16
23
24
25 11
Email from Meta personnel to White House staff (Feb. 24, 2021, 7:54 PM); see Ex. 5.
12
Id.
26 13
Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Feb. 24, 2021, 8:41 PM); see Ex. 2.
14
27 Internal email between Meta personnel (Feb. 28, 2021, 8:07 AM); see Ex. 1.
15
Id.
28 16
Id.; see also Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Feb. 24, 2021, 8:41 PM); see Ex. 2.
9
COMPLAINT
1 30. On March 1, 2021, Meta provided a briefing to the Biden White House on
2 what the company was doing to combat COVID-related “misinformation” on its
3 platform.17 Internal Meta documents reveal that, during the briefing, Meta “shared [its]
4 most recent enforcement numbers [against misinformation] and committed to sharing
5 this out monthly.”18
6 31. Meta also told Andy Slavitt, then-Senior Advisor for the White House’s
7 COVID-19 Response Team, that Meta was “in a lockdown on Covid misinfo,” which
8 is a “term that internal teams use to describe a defined time that they use to focus on a
9 problem – in this case understanding what additional steps they would take on
10 misinfo.”19
11 32. Apparently, when Meta mentioned that it was in a “lockdown to sprint on
12 efforts to focus on misinfo and vaccine hesitancy,” it “piqued” Slavitt’s “interest,”
13 causing him to ask “follow up questions,” such as “how close are you to being done?
14 10%? 50%?” but Meta “did not have a good answer.”20
15 33. While two Meta employees noted later that “it should not have been
16 mentioned, and asked [Meta’s Public Policy team] to walk back the statement about the
17 lockdown and not mention it again,” by that point, it was too late: Slavitt was already
18 “frustrated and took this inability to answer as stonewalling / hiding.”21
19 34. Following the meeting, Meta circulated an internal recap of the call, stating
20 that there was “clear frustration that we aren’t able to provide more data that
21 demonstrates our work in this area.”22 The email then listed three “Specific Asks from
22 the White House,” including for Meta to provide details on its “lockdown” and “claim
23 level data” on Meta’s misinformation enforcement.” 23
24
17
Brief: Call with White House Senior Advisor on Covid-19, at 3; see Ex. 6.
25 18
Id. at 5.
19
Id.
26 20
Id. at 1, 2, & 6.
21
27 Id. at 2 & 6.
22
Internal email between Meta personnel and Mark Zuckerberg (June 4, 2021, 2:24 PM); see Ex. 5;
28 23
Id.
10
COMPLAINT
1 35. Meta also noted that it “expect[ed] the White House [] to establish a cross-
2 industry social media task force with the goal of setting a baseline on Covid
3 misinformation and enforcement [] within the next two weeks.” 24
4 36. On March 2, a Meta employee emailed internally, noting that he had
5 received an email from the Head of the White House Office of Public Engagement “last
6 night with feedback that the White House was frustrated by yesterday’s meeting,
7 particularly around the information [Meta was] providing on [its] enforcement efforts.”
25
8 The employee also added, “we are hearing from Senior WH leadership that they are
9 running out of patience with us on this subject, and it may cost us an opportunity to
10 work with them constructively.”26
11 37. Another employee replied, “It looks like this is getting out of hand :/. Do
12 you have a good sense of what the WH wants? Would it make sense [] to come up with
13 some creative solutions?” 27
14 38. Meta would meet again with the Biden White House on March 12, 2021,
15 to discuss how it was approaching “borderline content,” that is, content that did not
16 violate its policies. 28
17 39. On March 12, 2021, Meta provided another briefing to Flaherty,
18 explaining about how it was “approaching borderline COVID-related content” i.e.,
19 COVID-related content that did not violate its policies. 29Meta walked through its
20 policies and enforcement practices for violative and borderline content. 30But call notes
21 reveal that throughout the meeting, Flaherty continued to ask about the removal and
22 reduction of content above all else. 31
23
24
24 Id.
25
Internal email between Meta personnel (Mar. 2, 2021, 9:18 AM); see Ex. 7.
25 26
Id. at 2.
27
Internal email between Meta personnel (Mar. 2, 2021, 10:35 AM); see Ex. 7.
26 28
Brief: Call with White House Senior Advisor on Covid-19, at 2; see Ex. 3.
29
27 Id.
30
Id.
28 31
Id. (emphasis added).
11
COMPLAINT
1 40. Internal Meta documents reveal that Meta believed the March 12 meeting
2 was “productive,” but tensions quickly escalated again just a few days later. Following
3 a critical Washington Post article about vaccine misinformation, the White House
4 started to berate Meta’s Public Policy team.
5 41. On March 15, the White House emailed Meta’s Public Policy team a link
6 to the Washington Post article with the subject line “You are hiding the ball.” 32
7 42. Slavitt also chimed into add that he “fe[lt] like relative to others,
8 interactions with Meta are not straightforward and the problems are worse.” 33He then
9 added the vague threat: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do
10 about it.” 34
11 43. Meta immediately understood the seriousness of the threat. In an internal
12 email on March 16, Meta’s Public Policy team flagged for Nick Clegg, Meta’s President
13 of Global Affairs, that the Biden White House was accusing Meta of “hiding the ball,”
14 lacking an adequate “sense of urgency” and that these concerns were “being discussed
15 within the broader White House.” 35
16 44. Also March 16, Slavitt emailed Clegg directly to let him know that Slavitt
17 was working with the most senior staff in the Biden White House, including Jeff Zients,
18 today the White House’s Chief and at the time serving as COVID-19 Response
19 Coordinator.” 36
20 45. Following Slavitt’s outreach, Meta drafted an internal brief for Clegg to
21 prepare him for the upcoming call with Slavitt scheduled for March 19, 2021. 37The
22 brief recommended that Clegg reiterate to Slavitt that “experts have told us that removal
23
32
24 Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Mar. 14, 2021, 11:13 PM); see Ex. 8; see also Elizabeth
Dwoskin, Massive Meta study on users’ doubt in vaccines finds a small group appears to play a big
25 role in pushing the skepticism, THE WASHINGTON POST (Mar. 14, 2021).
33
Email from Andy Slavitt to Meta personnel (Mar. 15, 2021, 7:11 PM); see Ex. 9.
26 34
Id.
35
27 Brief: Call with White House Senior Advisor on Covid-19, at 2; see Ex. 6 (emphasis added).
36
Email from Andy Slavitt to Nick Clegg (Mar. 16, 2021, 6:41 PM); see Ex. 10.
28 37
Brief: Call with White House Senior Advisor on Covid-19; see Ex. 6.
12
COMPLAINT
1 is not always the answer,” while emphasizing that Meta had already “made
2 unprecedented updates to [its] policies and enforcement tooling and [was] removing
3 more content that [it thought] could lead to harm” in addition to “reducing the spread
4 of content” that wasn’t violating Meta’s policies but that Meta thought “could lead to
5 hesitancy.” 38The brief added, “We have had ongoing conversations for the last year
6 with the Biden campaign, transition, and now Administration around our approach to
7 misinformation.” 39
8 46. Later, the brief made the White House’s position even more clear: “They
9 don’t care that much about our approach to amplifying authoritative info. When [one
10 Meta employee] mentioned [Meta’s] Covid Information Center, Rob [Flaherty] audibly
11 laughed. They feel the growing overabundance of misinfo outweighs and outpaces
12 passive hub type offerings/product offerings.” 40
13 47. In other words, while Meta tried to avoid the topic of censorship, focusing
14 on ways Meta was promoting pro-vaccine content, the Biden White House continually
15 redirected its attention squarely at censoring anti-vaccine content, believing that was
16 the only effective way to convince the American people to get vaccinated.
17 48. Following the March 19, call, Clegg emailed Slavitt, providing his cell
18 phone number and stating, “Plse don’t hesitate to get in touch as/when needed - it was
19 great to make initial contact, and I cannot stress enough the urgency and importance
20 which we attach to this from the top of the company downwards.” 41
21 49. On March 19, Slavitt replied, “Thanks for the call,” and provided his
22 personal cell phone number as well, adding “Look forward to follow up.” 42
23 50. On March 21, Meta’s Public Policy team followed up with Flaherty and
24 Slavitt stating that it would work to develop and share additional data on “the most viral
25
38
Id. at 1-2.
26 39
Id. at 2.
40
27 Id. at 6.
41
Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Mar. 19, 2021, 3:24 PM); see Ex. 12.
28 42
Email from Andy Slavitt to Nick Clegg (Mar. 19, 2021, 6:28 PM); see Ex. 12.
13
COMPLAINT
1 COVID vaccine-related content” on Meta and would be implementing “additional

2 changes that were approved late last week” to “reduc[e] the virality of content
3 discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation,” which, Meta
4 noted, “is often-true content.” 43
5 51. The next day, the Flaherty replied, asking Meta a barrage of questions,
6 including, “what interventions are being taken on ‘skepticism?’” adding that Slavitt
7 would to Clegg “a couple times per week if its [sic] necessary to get all of this.” 44
8 52. On March 24, 2021, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a
9 United Kingdom-based non-profit, published a “report” that claimed that Robert F.
10 Kennedy Jr. and eleven other individuals were responsible for 73% of all “anti‑vaccine”
11 content on Meta. 45
12 53. In the report, CCDH strongly encouraged social media companies to
13 remove all accounts associated with these twelve individuals, which CCDH dubbed the
14 “Disinfo Dozen” or Disinformation Dozen,” and the accounts of their associated
15 organizations, entirely from their platforms.46
16 54. By March 31, 2021, Meta had determined that “most of the accounts”
17 associated with the CCDH’s Disinfo Dozen did not violate its policies and would not
18 come down under its content moderation policies.47
19 55. Meanwhile, on March 26, 2021, Meta had another call with Flaherty.102
20 According to internal notes taken by Meta to memorialize the call, Meta again walked
21 the White House through data on how Meta enforced its policies. Flaherty continued to
22 press for more information regarding removal as well as “tangible examples.”103 The
23
43
24 Email from Meta personnel to White House staff (Mar. 21, 2021, 11:25 PM); see Ex. 11.
44
Email from Meta personnel to White House staff (Mar. 22, 2021, 4:51 PM); see Ex. 11.
25 45
The Disinformation Dozen: Why Platforms Must Act on Twelve Leading Online Anti-Vaxxers,
CENTER FOR COUNTERING DIGITAL HATE (Mar. 24, 2021).
26 46
The CCDH labeled the following 12 individuals as the “Disinformation Dozen”: Joseph Mercola,
27 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Ty and Charlene Bollinger, Sherri Tenpenny, Rizza Islam, Rashid Buttar, Erin
Elizabeth, Sayer Ji, Kelly Brogan, Christiane Northrup, Ben Tapper, Kevin Jenkins.
28 47
Internal email between Meta personnel (Mar. 31, 2021, 7:35 PM); see Ex. 12.
14
COMPLAINT
1 call notes state that Flaherty also asked whether Meta was doing enough to reduce
2 traffic from sites like the New York Post: “I’m curious – NY Post churning out articles
3 every day about people dying. What is supposed to happen to that from Policy
4 perspective. Does that article get a reduction, labels?”48
5 56. Meta reiterated its three-pronged approach: remove, reduce, inform.
6 57. In response, Flaherty stated that rather than “inform – intellectually my
7 bias is to kick people off” Meta, while recognizing “targeting” “people that engage with
8 antivax content” may be the “path of most impact.” 49
9 58. Ultimately, Meta ended the meeting by agreeing to meet regularly with the
10 Biden White House on these issues. 50
11 59. Two days later, on March 28, Meta emailed Flaherty, thanking him for
12 meeting and following up on questions that Flaherty had about Meta’s efforts to censor
13 vaccine related content on WhatsApp. 51
14 60. On March 30, Flaherty replied, questioning whether Meta had censorship
15 on WhatsApp “under control.” 52
16 61. Meanwhile, on March 29, 2021, Clegg emailed Slavitt directly, stating he
17 was told the meeting with “Rob Flaherty on Friday [March 26] went well. Do tell me if
18 you hear otherwise.” 53
19 62. On March 29, Slavitt replied, “I heard the same. Which is really nice given
20 that things are starting to heat up on the topic. So thank you. Look forward to the follow
21 up.” 54
22 B: April 2021: Biden Administration’s Coercion Intensifies as it Demands
That Meta Heavily Focus on Censoring Anti-Vaccine Content
23
24
48
Id.
25 49
Meta notes from call with White House staff (Mar. 26, 2021); see Ex. 3.
50
Id.
26 51
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (Mar. 28, 2021, 5:51 PM); see Ex. 13.
52
27 Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Mar. 28, 2021, 8:51 PM); see Ex. 14.
53
Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Mar, 29, 2021, 1:40 AM); see Ex. 12.
28 54
Email from Andy Slavitt to Nick Clegg (Mar, 29, 2021, 4:17 AM); see Ex. 12.
15
COMPLAINT
1 63. Meta met with the Biden White House again on April 5, 2021. 55
2 64. Internal Meta call notes reveal that, during the meeting, President Biden’s
3 head of strategic communications and public engagement for COVID-19 response,
4 Courtney Rowe, mocked rural Americans’ ability to determine what is true and what is
5 not, allegedly stating, “If someone in rural Arkansas sees something on FB, it’s the
6 truth.” 56
7 65. In the meeting, Meta pointed out that it was “[s]eeing a trend in memes
8 and satire making fun of individuals that don’t want to get vaccine.” 57
9 66. Near the end of the meeting, Meta noted that it would start providing the
10 Biden White House with “the major themes that we’re seeing each week,” from “[f]lat
11 out, adversarial misinfo” to “vaccine hesitant content.” 58
12 67. Two days later, an internal Meta email stated that the team “may be asked
13 to do even further policy development on vaccine hesitant entities” to “address the
14 perceived ‘gaps.’” 59
15 68. Accusations from the CCDH’s Disinformation Dozen report also were
16 proving to be a challenge, even though some of the entities “were completely benign”
17 according to Meta’s internal assessment. 60
18 69. At the time, Meta understood that vaccine hesitancy is not the same as
19 misinformation. 61
20 70. On April 9, 2021, Meta emailed the Biden White House, explaining the
21 ways in which it was already working to limit the virality of certain vaccine-related
22 content on its WhatsApp platform. 62Meta also emphasized that Meta would continue
23
55
24 Meta notes from call with White House staff (Apr.. 5, 2021) (on file with the Comm.); see Ex. 3.
56
Id.
25 57
Id.
58
Id.
26 59
Internal email between Meta personnel (Apr. 7, 2021, 2:35 PM); see Ex. 12.
60
27 Internal email between Meta personnel (Apr. 7, 2021, 5:44 PM); see Ex. 12.
61
Id.
28 62
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (Apr. 9, 2021, 11:15 AM); see Ex. 15.
16
COMPLAINT
1 “to design further product features that limit virality [of COVID and vaccine-related
2 information] on WhatsApp.” 63
3 71. Later that day, Flaherty replied, “In the electoral context, you tested and
4 deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the
5 election. This was reported in the New York Times and also readily apparent to anyone
6 with cursory social listening tools. You only did this, however, after an election that
7 you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part,
8 on your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in
9 data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” 64
10 72. Meta replied that the company understood. 65
11 73. On April 13, 2021, Nick Clegg emailed Andy Slavitt following news that
12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration
13 (FDA) recommended that states pause using the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, stating,
14 “Re the J+J news, we’re keen to amplify any messaging you want us to project about
15 what this means for people – it obviously has the risk of exacerbating vaccine hesitancy,
16 so we’re keen to get ahead of the knock-on effect. Don’t hesitate to tell me – or via your
17 teams – how we can help to provide clarity/reassurance via Meta.” 66
18 74. Meta’s Public Policy team also forwarded Clegg’s email to Flaherty and
19 Courtney Rowe, noting that Meta wanted “to make sure we are amplifying the right
20 messages.” 67
21 75. In response, on April 13, Flaherty asked Meta staff for a “commitment
22 from [Meta] to make sure that a favorable review reaches as many people as the pause,
23 either through hard product interventions or algorithmic amplification.” 68
24
25 63
Id.
64
Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Apr. 9, 2021, 2:56 PM); see Ex. 16 (emphasis added).
26 65
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (Apr. 10, 2021, 2:33 PM); see Ex. 16 (emphasis added).
66
27 Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Apr. 13, 2021, 9:18 AM); see Ex. 12.
67
Email from Meta personnel to White House staff (Apr. 13, 2021, 12:21 PM); see Ex. 17.
28 68
Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Apr. 14, 2021, 1:33 PM); see Ex. 17.
17
COMPLAINT
1 C: The Biden Administration Meta to Suppress Opinions & Begin

2 Targeting Specific Americans
76. On April 14, 2021, Meta had a call with the Biden White House after the
3
Biden Administration continued to grow frustrated as Meta still was not silencing
4
enough Americans to satisfy its voracious appetite for control. 69
5
77. Prior to the call, Slavitt emailed Clegg about a video that journalist Tucker
6
Carlson had released the night before questioning whether COVID vaccines were safe
7
and effective, stating, “Number one on Meta. Sigh. Big reveal call with FB and WH
8
today. No progress since we spoke. Sigh.” 70
9
78. Internal meeting notes reveal that Meta understood that the White House
10
wanted “empirical information regarding success of interventions”—that is, data on the
11
effectiveness of Meta’s censorship. 71
12
79. Indeed, in the meeting, Flaherty explained to Meta that, “We have to
13
explain to President [Biden], Ron [Klain, White House Chief of Staff], people, why
14
there is misinfo on the internet, bigger problem than FB.” 72
15
80. At one point in the meeting, Flaherty asked Meta about the “material
16
impact” of “chang[ing] the algorithm so that people were more likely to see NYT, WSJ,
17
any authoritative news source over Daily Wire, Tomi Lahren, polarizing people.” 73
18
81. During the meeting, Meta also explained how it was “actively pushing to
19
remove” the Disinformation Dozen from its platform.74
20
82. But later in the meeting, Flaherty began to grow impatient, stating, “I feel
21
like we’re running around in circles. [] This feels like we’re chasing our tails. If you
22
don’t want to give information, just say that. I don’t want to feel like I’m going to a dog
23
24
25 69
Email from Nick Clegg to Rob Flaherty (Apr. 14, 2021, 10:52 AM); see Ex. 17.
70
Id.
26 71
Meta notes from call with White House staff (Apr. 14, 2021); see Ex. 3.
72
27 Id.
73
Id.
28 74
Id.
18
COMPLAINT
1 and pony show. My dream is for FB to play ball. It’s about will we get out of this
2 fucking mess.” 75
3 83. Following the meeting, on April 14, 2021, Flaherty, copying Slavitt,
4 emailed Meta demanding answers about why Meta had allowed videos by Tomi Lahren
5 and Tucker Carlson to become the top posts about vaccines on Meta for two consecutive
6 days, adding, “This is exactly why I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like
7 – if ‘reduction’ means ‘pumping our most vaccine hesitant audience with tucker
8 Carlson saying it doesn’t work’ then . . . I’m not sure it’s reduction!” 76
9 84. That evening, Clegg sent a follow-up email to Slavitt, stating, “Hi Andy -
10 have looked into this some more. I realize it may be of limited comfort at this moment,
11 but this was not the most popular post about vaccines on Meta today. Our data is slightly
12 lagging, and we’ll get back to you with more detail on this specific post tomorrow.
13 Right now, it appears that it probably was among the top 100 most-viewed vaccine
14 posts. I’m including a few examples of posts that were more popular today at the end
15 of this note,” which just happened to be posts by CNN, ABC, NBC, the New York
16 Times, the CDC, CBS, and Heather Cox Richardson, an outspoken proponent of Joe
17 Biden. 77
18 85. Clegg continued, “Regardless of popularity, the Tucker Carlson video
19 does not qualify for removal under our policies. Following the government’s decision
20 yesterday, we are allowing claims that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine causes blood
21 clots, but we still do not allow categorical claims that it or other vaccines are unsafe or
22 ineffective. That said, the video is being labeled with a pointer to authoritative COVID
23
24
25
75
26 76
77
27 Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Apr. 14, 2021, 10:51 PM); see Ex. 19; see David Smith,
‘An end of American democracy’: Heather Cox Richardson on Trump’s historic threat, THE
28 GUARDIAN (Oct. 7, 2023).
19
COMPLAINT
1 information, it’s not being recommended to people, and it is being demoted.” 78Meta
2 staff then forwarded Clegg’s email to Flaherty. 79
3 86. In his reply later that evening, Flaherty stated, “I guess this is a good
4 example of your rules in practice then — and a chance to dive in on questions as they’re
5 applied. How was this not violative? The second half of the segment is raising
6 conspiracy theories about the government hiding that all vaccines aren’t effective. It’s
7 not about just J&J. What exactly is the rule for removal vs demoting? Moreover: you
8 say reduced and demoted. What does that mean? There’s 40,000 shares on the video.
9 Who is seeing it now? How many? How effective is that? And we’ve gone a million
10 rounds on this in other contexts so pardon what may seem like deja vu — but on what
11 basis is ‘visit the covid-19 information center for vaccine resources’ the best thing to
12 tag to a video that says the vaccine doesn’t work? Not for nothing but last time we did
13 this dance, it ended in an insurrection.” 80
14 87. Internal Meta documents reveal that shortly thereafter Meta employees
15 exchanged emails, stating, “I find this kind of harassment from White House staff to be
16 terribly galling, but useful to understand their perspective on us clearly.”
17 88. Two days later, on April 16, 2021, Flaherty sent another email to Meta
18 staff, appearing to express his impatience with Meta’s delay in response, stating, “These
19 questions weren’t rhetorical.” 81
20 89. A few days later, on April 21, 2021, Meta’s Public Policy team sent
21 Flaherty a long email, replying to each of Flaherty’s questions, including explaining
22 why Meta only demoted Tucker Carlson’s post rather than remove it. 82
23
24
25 78
Id.
79
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (Apr. 14, 2021, 8:11 PM); see Ex. 20.
26 80
Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Apr. 14, 2021, 11:59 PM); see Ex. 19. (emphasis
27 added).
81
28 82
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (Apr. 21, 2021, 2:01 PM); see Ex. 19.
20
COMPLAINT
1 90. In response to Flaherty’s question, “How was the Tucker post not
2 violative?” Meta staff replied, “while we remove content that explicitly directs people
3 not to get the vaccine, as well as content that contains explicit misrepresentations about
4 vaccines, we reviewed this content in detail and it does not violate those policies.” 83In
5 response to Flaherty’s question about what Meta meant by “reduced and demoted” and
6 how effective those measures were given that the video had already received “40,000
7 shares,” Meta staff replied, “The video received 50% demotion for seven days while in
8 the queue to be fact checked, and will continue to be demoted even though it was not
9 ultimately fact checked.” 84
10 D: The Biden Administration Expands its Censorship Demands Yet Again,
11 “Discouraging” Vaccine Content & Even Jokes Must Be Suppressed.
91. Clegg testified to the Committee that sometimes the White House would
12
request, during a phone call with Meta, that the platform remove specific pieces of
13
content. They would provide specific examples. And as part of a back-and-forth, we
14
would definitely receive questions about, why did you not remove this content, why did
15
you not remove that content? So it wasn't just a generic or general theoretical
16
discussion. It was sometimes quite a granular discussion about specific posts. 85
17
92. Once such example of the Biden White House requesting specific content
18
be removed from Meta occurred in mid-April 2021.
19
93. On April 16, 2021, Clegg emailed Slavitt to provide nonpublic information
20
about the vaccine-related content that Meta was seeing on its platform “as well as the
21
interventions” it was “deploying to counter misinformation,” adding that the company
22
did not normally share this type of data but “took [the Biden White House’s] cue the
23
other day that it was important to get this to [the Biden White House] quickly even if
24
not polished.” 86
25
26 83
Id.
84
27 Id.
85
House Jud. Comm.’s Transcribed Interview of Nick Clegg (Mar. 1, 2024), at 21-22.
28 86
Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Apr. 16, 2021, 9:07 PM); see Ex. 15.
21
COMPLAINT
1 94. Clegg also noted that it did not yet have “a specific answer on the [Biden
2 White House’s questions about the] Tucker Carlson post.” 87
3 95. On April 18, 2021, Clegg informed his team at Meta that he just “got off
4 [an] hour long call with Andy Slavitt,” in which Slavitt told Clegg that he had “attended
5 a meeting of misinfo researchers (didn’t provide names) organized by Rob Flaherty on
6 Friday in which the consensus was that FB [Meta] is a “disinformation factory.”88
7 96. Clegg then informed his team that Slavitt “was outraged – not too strong
8 a word to describe his reaction – that [Meta] did not remove” a particular post—a
9 Leonardo DiCaprio meme— “which was third most highly ranked post in the data set
10 [Meta] sent to him.”
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
87
Id.
28 88
Email from Nick Clegg to Meta personnel (Apr. 18, 2021, 9:07 PM); see Ex. 16.
22
COMPLAINT
1
2 97. Clegg “countered that removing content like that would represent a
3 significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US but
4 he [Slavitt] replied that the post was directly comparing Covid vaccines to asbestos
5 poisoning in a way which demonstrably inhibits confidence in Covid vaccines amongst
6 those the Biden Administration is trying to reach.” 89
7 98. In other words, Slavitt disregarded Clegg’s warning that removing a meme
8 about vaccine side effects would likely violate the First Amendment. 90
9 99. Clegg later testified to the Committee that about this call with Slavitt:
10 “And it seemed to me obvious that if Big Tech platforms were to start acting against
11 what was clearly satire, humor, facetiousness online, I mean, it would set a pretty
12 significant precedent.”
13 100. Clegg concluded by telling his team that, “Given what is at stake here, it
14 would be a good idea if we could regroup to take stock of where we are in our relations
15 with the WH [White House], and our internal methods too.” 91
16 101. In testimony before the Committee, Clegg testified that “[the White
17 House] certainly urged us to take down content and pointed out content which they felt
18 should have been removed,” and that the White House’s requests for more to be
19 removed were “a pretty persistent thing” and “at the heart of” most of the calls. 92
20 102. In response, Meta’s Public Policy team raised the concern that Slavitt’s
21 “challenge [felt] very much like a crossroads for us with the [Biden] White House in
22 these early days.” 93
23
24
25 89
Id.
90
Id.
26 91
Email from Nick Clegg to Meta personnel (Apr. 18, 2021, 9:07 PM); see Ex. 16.
92
27 House Judiciary Committee’s Transcribed Interview of Nick Clegg (Mar. 1, 2024), at 34, 65-66 (on
file with the Comm.).
28 93
Email from Meta personnel to Nick Clegg (Apr. 18, 2021, 7:05 PM); see Ex 20.
23
COMPLAINT
1 103. Another member of Clegg’s team, added, “Clearly we have a policy

2 viewpoint gap with [the White House] we need to figure out perspectives on – what we
3 believe violates and what they think does,” adding that Meta need to “get to a common
4 ground on what [it was] doing on substance.” 94
5 104. Clegg then replied, agreeing that Meta needed to “identify the gaps”
6 between the White House’s “views and [its] policies” and “see what further steps [it
7 could] take.” 95
8 105. On April 23, 2021, Clegg followed up with Slavitt to address the Biden
9 White House’s “wider questions about whether [Meta was] drawing the lines re what
10 is removed and/or demoted in the right place,” noting that it was “looking at options”
11 and would “reach out again as/when” it had “worked up new proposals.” 96
12 106. The same day, Flaherty sent Meta staff an email with the subject line
13 “Research Suggestions” that included a document entitled “Meta COVID-19 Vaccine
14 Misinformation Brief” that Flaherty stated was “circulating around” the White House
15 “and informing thinking.” 97
16 107. Flaherty cautioned Meta, “Don’t read this as White House endorsement of
17 these suggestions (or, also, as the upper bound of what our thoughts on this might be).
18 But – spirit of transparency – this is circulating around the [White House] building and
19 informing thinking.” 98
20 108. The document had two major headings: “Meta plays a major role in the
21 spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and “Meta’s policy and enforcement gaps
22 enable misinformation’s spread.” 99
23
24
25 94
Email from Meta personnel to Nick Clegg (Apr. 18, 2021, 7:30 PM); see Ex. 16.
95
Id.
26 96
Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Apr. 23, 2021, 3:50 PM); see Ex. 15.
97
27 Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (Apr. 23, 2021, 2:27 PM); see Ex. 15.
98
Id.
28 99
Id.
24
COMPLAINT
1 109. Under each heading, the document listed multiple bullet points detailing
2 perceived problems with Meta’s COVID-related censorship efforts, including “Non-
3 English mis/disinformation circulating without moderation (Spanish, Arabic, Chinese,
4 among others)” and how people censored on one Meta account may still be able to
5 speak freely on another account or “another Meta owned platform like Instagram.” 100
6 110. On April 27, 2021, Clegg emailed Slavitt, noting that Meta had “received
7 the recommendations/observations from the research organizations you met re covid
8 misinfo etc this afternoon – the teams are now looking at them carefully, and I’ll get
9 back to you once that’s done.” 101
10 111. Following Clegg’s call with Slavitt on April 18, Meta employees began
11 preparing a draft memo to Mark Zuckerberg about the “continued pressure” from the
12 Biden White House to remove “more COVID-19 vaccine discouraging content,” and
13 to remove “entities that are seen to be contributing to a large amount of vaccine
14 misinformation content,” (hereinafter, the “Disinfo Dozen”), even though the Meta
15 employees did “not believe we currently have a clear path for removal.” 102
16 112. On April 28, 2021, a Meta employee circulated the draft memo for Meta
17 CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, writing: “We are facing continued
18 pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House . . . to remove
19 more COVID-19 vaccine discouraging content. For example, we recently shared with
20 the White House a list of the top 100 vaccine-related posts on FB [Meta] in the U.S. for
21 the week of 4/5-4/11. While authoritative information dominated the list, the White
22 House was concerned that the #3 post was a vaccine discouraging humorous meme,
23 and they called on us to delete the meme. We didn’t appropriately catch-and-demote
24 this meme (and it shouldn’t be removed as it’s humorous/satirical and arguably true).
25 Still, this incident prompted us to take another hard look at our approach and to seek
26
100
27 Id.
101
Email from Nick Clegg to Andy Slavitt (Apr. 27, 2021, 12:11 AM); see Ex. 12.
28 102
Internal emails between Meta personnel (Apr. 2021); see Ex. 21.
25
COMPLAINT
1 your guidance on whether to take more aggressive action against certain vaccine
2 discouraging content.” 103
3 113. Options included: 25% demotion (which was the current plan); 50% or
4 stronger demotion (they said maybe even 80%) if 50% “isn’t sufficient to keep such
5 content out of top vaccine posts”; or Remove the content. 104
6 E: The Wheels Fall Off & Biden Administration Becomes Outraged
7 114. The pace of communications between Meta and the White House slowed
8 somewhat during May and June of 2021.105
9 115. On May 26, 2021, Meta stopped censoring lab-leak theory.106
10 116. In early July, top Meta officials, including Clegg, engaged directly with
11 the Surgeon General’s Office about alleged misinformation.107
12 117. But the situation began to rapidly change in mid-July.
13 118. On July 14, 2021, the Eric Waldo of the Surgeon General’s office informed
14 Meta that Surgeon General Vivek Murthy would be releasing an “Advisory” the
15 following day “about the importance of addressing health misinformation” and
16 expected to regularly connect with Meta “about this and more” in the future.108
17 119. In a follow-up email on the same day, the Surgeon General’s Office
18 informed Meta that “the Advisory notes that technology companies and social media
19 organizations have a role to play in product and policy design to help slow the spread
20 of health misinformation.”109
21 F: Biden Administration Demands Surgeon General Gets Involved
22 120. On July 15, 2021, the Surgeon General’s office emailed Meta, highlighting
23 the Advisory and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s statements that “American lives are
24
103
Internal email between Meta personnel (Apr. 28, 2021, 4:27 PM); see Ex. 22. (emphasis in original).
25 104
Id.
105
See May and June emails between Meta and White House; see Ex. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, & 30.
26 106
Internal email from Meta personnel to Mark Zuckerberg (June 6, 2021, 2:24 PM); see Ex. 18.
107
27 See, e.g., Email from Surg. Gen. office to Meta personnel (July 6, 2021, 9:47 AM); see Ex. 12.
108
Email from Eric Waldo to Clegg and other Meta personnel (July 14, 2021, 5:21 PM); see Ex. 12.
28 109
Email from Eric Waldo to Clegg and other Meta personnel (July 15, 2021, 9:08 AM); see Ex. 12.
26
COMPLAINT
1 at risk” unless social media companies “do more to address the spread [of
2 misinformation] on their platforms.”110
3 121. The same day, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki held a joint
4 press briefing with Surgeon General Murthy and criticized “Meta specifically for [its]
5 handling of COVID misinformation and listed four steps” the White House believed
6 Meta should be taking, citing CCDH’s claim that “12 people”—that is, the so-called
7 Disinformation Dozen— were “producing 65 percent of anti-vaccine misinformation
8 on social media platforms” and noting that it was “important to take faster action against
9 harmful posts.”111
10 122. Following these statements, Meta scrambled to determine whether the so-
11 called Disinformation Dozen had been “totally removed” from its platforms, with one
12 employee noting that “The White House made a statement about these accounts and
13 now leadership is interested in what the status is, we’d like to do this now if at all
14 possible.” (Following its review, Meta “identified 39 accounts that are owned by, or
15 appear to be linked to, the Disinfo Dozen,” of which 15 had been disabled, four were
16 “experiencing feature blocks,” 10 were in “non-rec status,” and the remaining accounts
17 had not posted “sufficient violating content” recently to be disabled or incur
18 penalties.)112
19 123. Meanwhile, other Meta employees emailed internally, noting that the
20 Biden Administration’s definition of “misinformation” was “completely unclear,” and
21 that it “seems like when the vaccination campaign isn’t going as hoped, it’s convenient
22 for them to blame us.” Another added that the Biden White House’s response seemed
23 like “a political battle . . . not fully grounded in facts, and it’s frustrating.”113
24
25 110
Email from Eric Waldo to Clegg and other Meta personnel (July 15, 2021, 9:08 AM); see Ex. 12.
111
Internal email from Meta personnel to Nick Clegg (July 15, 2021, 4:21 PM); see Ex. 17; Press
26
Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, July 15, 2021, THE
27 WHITE HOUSE.
112
Internal text thread between Meta personnel (July 15, 2021); see Ex. 31.
28 113
Internal email among Meta personnel (July 16, 2021, 8:14 PM); see Ex. 17.
27
COMPLAINT
1 124. On July 15, 2021, the Biden White House also emailed Meta about
2 technical issues that had been affecting follower growth on President Biden’s Instagram
3 account (@potus). When a Meta employee replied that he was unable to explain the
4 internal technical issue but noted that it had been “resolved and should not happen
5 again,” Rob Flaherty replied in a tone familiar to Meta personnel, “Are you guys
6 f***ing serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”114
7 G. President Biden says that Meta is “killing people”
8 125. On July 16, 2021, Meta met with the Surgeon General’s office to discuss
9 the advisory the Surgeon General had announced publicly the day before.115
10 126. Prior to the meeting, Meta emailed internally about how CCDH’s
11 Disinformation Dozen report was both flawed and yet still being repeatedly cited by
12 those who were alleging that Meta was “contributing significantly to vaccine
13 hesitancy.”116
14 127. One Meta employee lamented that CCDH’s data was “now being used to
15 guide major governmental policy decisions” and expressed concern that the Biden
16 White House may not be making decisions “based on grounded data.”117
17 128. He added, “it seems like the WH thinks that if we just removed these 12
18 accounts, this would cause 65 percent of anti-vax misinformation to go away.”118
19 129. Internal Meta notes from the July 16 meeting reveal that the Surgeon
20 General’s office stated that “the [Biden] Administration is concerned about
21 misinformation generally” and “made it clear that the [Biden] Administration is indeed
22
23
24
114
Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (July 15, 2021, 3:29 PM); see Ex. 15; see also House
25 Judiciary Committee’s Transcribed Interview of Nick Clegg (Mar. 1, 2024), at 29 (on file with the
Comm.).
26 115
Internal email between Meta personnel (July 16, 2021); see Ex. 18.
116
27 Internal email between Meta personnel (July 16, 2021, 10:21 AM); see Ex. 27.
117
Internal email between Meta personnel (July 16, 2021, 11:58 AM); see Ex. 27.
28 118
Id.
28
COMPLAINT
1 concerned that misinformation” on Meta was “jeopardizing proactive COVID

2 vaccination efforts.”119
3 130. The Surgeon General’s office also told Meta that while it had made “some
4 progress” to curtail misinformation, its work had “fallen short” and the company could
5 “do more,” such as by taking “quicker actions on harmful content.”120
6 131. In response, Meta stated that it had “invested considerable resources to
7 improve [its] misinformation policies and enforcement actions” and “substantially
8 demoted borderline COVID information, even if it is not false.”121
9 132. But that was not enough. Ultimately, internal documents reveal that Meta
10 “left the meeting with the impression that” although the Surgeon General’s office
11 wanted Meta “to do more,” it was not “sure how to encourage [the company] to take
12 down more problematic content.”122
13 133. On the same day, White House press secretary Jen Psaki again called out
14 Meta, citing CCDH’s claim that 12 people were responsible for most of the problematic
15 content online, noting that there were “additional steps” that platforms could take to
16 censor such content, and adding that the Biden Administration had been flagging
17 general “trends” or “narratives,” but “not specific posts,” for Meta’s attention.
18 134. Shortly after Psaki’s statements, President Biden told a reporter that social
19 media companies like Meta were “killing people” by allowing Covid misinformation
20 to spread on their platforms. 123
21 135. Following Biden’s statements, Meta leadership (CEO Mark Zuckerberg,
22 COO Sheryl Sandberg, Nick Clegg, VP of Global Affairs, and Joel Kaplan, VP for
23 Public Policy) texted noting that “The behavior of the WH over the last 24 hours has
24
25
119
Internal email between Meta personnel (July 16, 2021); see Ex. 18.
26 120
Id.
121
27 Id.
122
Id.
28 123
Id; Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, July 16, 2021, THE WHITE HOUSE
29
COMPLAINT
1 been highly cynical and dishonest,” especially given that the Surgeon General’s office
2 had “privately” been telling Meta that it had been doing a “decent job.”124
3 136. Zuckerberg asked if they considered including that “the WH put pressure
4 on us to censor the lab leak theory” as part of its “generic pressure” for the company to
5 “do more.”125
6 137. Sheryl Sandberg texted that the White House was “scapegoating” Meta to
7 “cover their own missed vaccination rates and a virus they can’t get control of through
8 public policy.”126
9 138. The text thread also reveals that Meta leadership believed it was in a “knife
10 fight” with the Biden White House that may warrant reaching out to Steve Ricchetti, a
11 counselor to President Biden.127
12 139. Zuckerberg thought that the President’s statement was coordinated with
13 Jen Psaki’s statement and the Surgeon General.128
14 140. The text thread mentioned how the Biden White House was telling
15 reporters that “they have long demanded more action from” Meta, which was “true,”
16 but Meta had already “done so much to promote authoritative information” and had
17 been “more effective than other platforms at combating misinformation.” 129
18 141. Consequently, Meta leadership considered whether it should “change [its]
19 model” of how it worked “with the WH on this,” noting, “If they’re more interested in
20 criticizing us than actually solving the problems, then I’m not sure how it’s helping the
21 cause to engage with them further.”130
22
23
124
24 See Nandita Bose and Elizabeth Culliford, Biden says Meta, others 'killing people' by carrying
COVID misinformation, REUTERS (July 16, 2021).
25 125
Message thread between Meta senior leadership (July 16, 2021); see Ex. 20.
126
Id.
26 127
Id.
128
27 Id.
129
Id.
28 130
Id.
30
COMPLAINT
1 142. Clegg added that “whether the WH want[ed] to deescalate” the situation –
2 “tho[ugh] much damage ha[d] already been done,” and Meta “need[ed] to reset” its
3 “working relationship with them.”131
4 143. Meta leadership also noted the double standard between the media
5 coverage of statements by President Biden versus President Trump, stating, “Did
6 Trump say things this irresponsible? If Trump blamed a private company not himself
7 and his govt, everyone would have gone nuts.” 132
8 144. On July 16, 2021, Clegg emailed Surgeon General Murthy about “what
9 has transpired over the past few days following the publication of the misinformation
10 advisory, and culminating today in the President’s remarks about” Meta. 133
11 145. Clegg explained to Murthy that teams from Meta and the Surgeon
12 General’s office met to “better understand the scope of what the White House
13 expect[ed] from [Meta] on misinformation going forward.” 134
14 146. Meta noted that while it certainly had understood “for some time” that
15 there was “disagreement on some of the policies governing [its] approach and how they
16 are being enforced,” it felt unfairly singled out and wanted “the opportunity to speak
17 directly to discuss a path forward.” 135
18 147. On July 19, 2021, Surgeon General Murthy replied, stating, “I know the
19 last few days have been challenging. I’d be happy to speak directly about how we move
20 forward.” 136
21 H: Meta Begins Damage Control
22 148. On July 17, a Vice President at Meta, emailed Anita Dunn, a senior advisor
23 to President Biden, seeking “to connect with [Dunn] on the President’s comments on
24
25 131
Id.
132
Id.
26 133
Id.
134
27 Email from Nick Clegg to Surgeon Gen. Vivek Murthy (July 16, 2021, 5:43 PM); see Ex. 19.
135
Id.
28 136
Id.
31
COMPLAINT
1 Covid misinfo and [Meta’s] work there. Really could use your advice and counsel on
2 how we get back to a good place here.” 137
3 149. The Meta employee added, “[w]hile there’s always been a disagreement
4 on where the lines should be on misinfo generally, we have genuinely tried to work
5 with the administration in good faith to address the gaps and solve the problems. As I
6 hope you know, we’ve been doing a significant amount of work to both fight the
7 misinfo and fight the pandemic through authoritative information. Obviously, yesterday
8 things were pretty heated, and I’d love to find a way to get back to pushing together on
9 this – we are 100% on the same team here in fighting this and I could really use your
10 advice.
11 150. In response, on July 17, Dunn added Flaherty to the email chain because,
12 in Dunn’s words, “he has been following your platform (and others) closely when it
13 comes to flow of information and misinformation.” 138
14 151. Flaherty chimed in, stating that he was “[h]appy to connect.” 139
15 152. Ginsburg replied back, “We’d love to find a way to get things back to a
16 productive conversation,” adding other Meta personnel to the email chain and noting
17 that Rob and the employee “have a tight working relationship already.” 140
18 153. The employee then chimed in, noting that Meta “had a conversation with
19 the Surgeon General’s office yesterday to discuss the advisory In [sic] more detail and
20 hope to continue to work to address concerns.” 141
21 154. The Meta employee concluded his email, noting “Along with David
22 [Ginsburg]—I am really hoping to close the gap in terms of what’s playing out publicly
23
24
25 137
Email from Surgeon Gen. Vivek Murthy to Nick Clegg (July 19, 2021, 3:29 PM); see Ex. 19.
138
Email from Meta personnel to White House staff (July 17, 2021, 5:52 PM); see Ex. 15 (emphasis
26
added).
139
27 Id. (emphasis added).
140
Email from White House staff to Meta personnel (July 17, 2021, 5:56 PM); see Ex. 15.
28 141
Email from Rob Flaherty to Meta personnel (July 17, 2021, 3:06 PM); see Ex. 15.
32
COMPLAINT
1 and what we might be able to accomplish working together,” adding “Rob—I’m around
2 anytime for a conversation.” 142
3 155. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2021, Meta circulated an email internally about
4 running an exercise to “determine the content that the White House would want us to
5 remove vs what we are currently removing,” so that it could demonstrate that it was “in
6 fact removing a sizable proportion of content and that the remaining delta is not content
7 that the general public would be comfortable with [it] removing.” 143
8 156. In its discussion, Meta pointed out that the Surgeon General’s advisory
9 defined misinformation “to include people posting truthfully about experiencing rare
10 side effects,” which it “obviously strongly disagree[d] with.” 144
11 157. On July 17, 2021, Meta also published a statement entitled, “Moving Past
12 the Finger Pointing,” in which it noted that, while the “Biden administration has chosen
13 to blame” companies like Meta for failing to meet its vaccination goals, Meta had been
14 taking action against vaccine misinformation, including “on all eight of the Surgeon
15 General’s recommendations.” 145
16 158. Clegg privately texted this statement to the Slavitt, stating that Meta was
17 hoping to avoid “further public broadsides,” and would reach out to Surgeon General
18 159. Murthy in the hopes that it could “resume a sensible conversation,
19 notwithstanding the differences,” “reset and move on.” 146
20 160. Slavitt replied, noting that the Biden White House did not think Meta’s
21 statement was “very productive,” and that the company was “talking around the
22 problem” instead of focusing on “what more could [it] do,” the latter of which, the
23 Biden White House stated, “is how [it could] move past finger pointing.” 147
24
25 142
Email from Meta personnel to Rob Flaherty (July 17, 2021, 6:14 PM); see Ex. 15.
143
Email from Meta personnel to Flaherty and Meta personnel (July 17, 2021, 3:23 PM); see Ex. 15.
26 144
145
27 Internal email between Meta personnel (July 17, 2021, 7:57 AM); see Ex. 16.
146
Internal email between Meta personnel (July 17, 2021, 11:08 AM); see Ex. 16.
28 147
Guy Rosen, Moving Past the Finger Pointing, META (July 17, 2021).
33
COMPLAINT
1 161. Clegg stated that while Meta understood the White House’s position, it
2 was a “big deal when POTUS accuses a major US Corp of killing people.” 148
3 162. Slavitt countered that the Biden White House was right to be “troubled”
4 that “7 of the top 10 vaccine posts on FB are anti-vaxx,” such as a post by Candace
5 Owens that stated “the government is hiding vaccine deaths.” 149
6 163. He added that the Biden White House wanted Meta “to come clean with
7 how many people see these posts and what [the company was] doing about them,”
8 adding that it has “asked and asked” for this information.
9 164. In response, Clegg told Slavitt that Meta was “now doing a full refreshed
10 analysis of the delta between FB’s misinfo coverage/definition and what [it thought]
11 the WH would want [it] to do.” 150
12 165. On July 19, as Meta worked to identify the “delta [] for what the WH
13 would want removed (vs what [Meta did] remove),” senior Meta employees texted back
14 and forth about the pressure the company was under from the Biden White House.
151
15 Clegg wrote that the “WH advisor” he had “been dealing with [was] totally focused
16 on [the] top 10 Crowdtangle Covid posts.” 152
17 166. He added that, “The Biden walkback of his earlier comments is significant
18 – and v deliberate – I think the way he hit back this weekend had a real effect.” 153
19 167. Clegg noted that he had been communicating with Meta CEO Mark
20 Zuckerberg “re the significance of the WH olive branch.” 154
21 168. Clegg also informed his team that over the last several days he had had
22 phone “calls with Andy Slavitt et al till 3 am on several occasions” and “many calls”
23
148
24 Text messages between Nick Clegg and Andy Slavitt; see Ex. 36.
149
Id.
25 150
Id.
151
Id.
26 152
Id.
153
27 Id.
154
Internal email between Meta personnel (July 19, 2021, 8:05 AM); see Ex. 16.; Message thread
28 between Nick Clegg and Meta personnel (July 19, 2021); see Ex. 24.
34
COMPLAINT
1 with Zuckerberg and Sandberg, adding that the White House and wanted Meta to “take
2 down content is which by most measures annoying/alarming but not necessarily harm
3 inducing misinfo.” 155
4 169. In response, Clegg’s team brainstormed ways Meta could “repair the
5 relationship with the WH,” while Clegg noted that repairing the relationship would be
6 difficult because “there simply isn’t consensus on what misinfo is” and so Meta needed
7 to know what its “coverage of misinfo” was versus what it thought “the WH would like
8 to see.” 156
9 170. On July 21, a Meta employee circulated an internal memo for Nick Clegg,
10 stating, “There is likely a significant gap between what the WH would like us to remove
11 and what we are comfortable removing. There are some policy mitigations that could
12 get the two parties closer, but Content Policy does not recommend pursuing them.” 157
13 171. The memo outlined the “delta” between the content that Meta was
14 removing and the content that the Biden White House wanted Meta to remove as well
15 as “mitigation options.” 158
16 172. For example, the Biden White House expressed its desire for Meta to
17 disable accounts across its platforms and remove “all links to the Disinfo Dozen’s off-
18 platform domains,” both of which Meta had previously reserved only “for child safety
19 and dangerous organization violations.” 159
20 173. The memo stated that the Biden Administration wanted Meta “to remove
21 true information” about vaccine side effects. 160
22 174. Additionally, the memo noted that the Biden White House would like
23 Meta to “remove content that provides any negative information on or opinions about
24
25 155
Message thread between Nick Clegg and Meta personnel (July 19, 2021); see Ex. 24.
156
Id.
26 157
Id.
158
27 Message from Nick Clegg to FB personnel (July 19, 2021, 5:42 PM); see Ex. 24.
159
Message from Nick Clegg to FB personnel (July 19, 2021, 10:01 PM); see Ex. 24.
28 160
Internal email from Meta personnel to Nick Clegg (July 21, 2021, 8:35 PM); see Ex. 35.
35
COMPLAINT
1 the vaccine without concluding that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh that
2 information or opinion” as well as “humorous or satirical content that suggests the
3 vaccine isn’t safe.” 161
4 175. The memo also indicated that it was likely that the Biden White House
5 wanted Meta to remove “true content and criticism of the government, both of which,”
6 the company felt the need to add, “are appropriate to allow on platform.” 162
7 176. The internal Meta memo further explained that the Biden White House
8 had “previously indicated that it thinks humor should be removed if it is premised on
9 the vaccine having side effects,” so Meta “expect[ed] it would similarly want to see
10 humor about vaccine hesitancy removed.” 163
11 177. The memo noted that it did not have “insight” into whether the Biden
12 White House wanted Meta to remove “personal opinions about government mandates
13 or explanations of personal choices not to get the vaccine,” again feeling the need to
14 add, “We believe there is a strong interest in protecting the expression of personal
15 opinion and personal choice.” 164
16 178. Finally, the memo outlined the “aggressive actions” that Meta had taken
17 to censor the Disinfo Dozen since March 2021, including by “expanding the amount”
18 of misinformation it removed and “by giving the ‘Worst of the Worst’ Entities 48 hours
19 to remove all violating misinformation or otherwise [] be removed” from the
20 platform.165
21 179. The memo boasted that, consequently, Meta removed “known anti-
22 vaxxers” such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Instagram account, chilling the speech of
23 many of these individuals. 166
24
25 161
Id.
162
Id.
26 163
Id.
164
27 Id.
165
Id.
28 166
Id.
36
COMPLAINT
1 180. The memo concluded by noting that Meta had removed at least one
2 account associated with 11 of the 12 Disinfo Dozen individuals, adding that when it
3 came to the 12th individual, who posted “mainly about internet censorship now,” Meta
4 was “watching his profile closely.” 167
5 181. In response to this memo, Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg asked Clegg if Meta
6 should “do more” to appease the Biden Administration. 168
7 182. In his reply, Clegg noted that Meta was also considering “what more data
8 we can share with them which is a big ask from the WH,” adding that “what the WH
9 appears to want us to remove ranges from humor to totally non violating chatter about
10 vaccines. I can’t see Mark [Zuckerberg] in a million years being comfortable with
11 removing that – and I wouldn’t recommend it.”169
12 183. Ultimately, Clegg noted that Meta should “wait to see what Surgeon Gen
13 tells me on Fri before deciding how/whether we need to make any bigger moves.” 170
14 184. On July 22, 2021, Clegg emailed internally to discuss how Meta would
15 handle its meeting with the Surgeon General the following day.171
16 185. Emails show that Meta planned to ask Surgeon General Murthy about
17 “what specific types of misinfo” it was missing so it could “move forward
18 productively.”172
19 186. Clegg also included “Andy Slavitt’s overnight advice on how to
20 understand where the WH is coming from,” which was that the Biden White House
21 would be “frustrated” until Meta could tell them “how much misinfo [was] being seen
22 by people” and made “a pledge to reduce the amount of misinfo,” the latter of which
23 was “all they care[d] about.”173
24
167
Id.
25 168
Id.
169
Id.
26 170
Id.
171
27 Internal email from Sheryl Sandberg to Nick Clegg (July 21, 2021, 11:01 PM); see Ex. 35.
172
Internal email from Nick Clegg to Sheryl Sandberg (July 21, 2021, 2:13 PM); see Ex. 35.
28 173
Id.
37
COMPLAINT
1 187. Clegg also mentioned that Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg was “keen that we
2 continue to explore some moves that we can make to show that we are trying to be
3 responsive to the WH,” while noting that that the “blackholing idea,” which Meta had
4 initially considered, would not “work after all” given that it would eliminate a lot of
5 benign content. 174
6 188. Clegg concluded his email by noting that he believed Meta’s “current
7 course – in effect explaining ourselves more fully, but not shifting on where we draw
8 the lines or on the data we provide” was “a recipe for protracted and increasing
9 acrimony with the WH.” 175
10 189. Clegg then added, “Given the bigger fish we have to fry with the [Biden]
11 Administration,” that “doesn’t seem a great place for us to be, so grateful for any further
12 creative thinking on how we can be responsive to their concerns.” 176
13 190. On July 23, 2021, Meta met with Surgeon General Murthy. 177
14 191. During the meeting, Clegg explained to the Surgeon General that, “NOT
15 ONE SINGLE post in the top FB 100 posts listed in the reports [Meta had] to submit
16 to the [Biden] Administration over the last several weeks [was] in any way associated
17 with the ‘disinfo dozen.’” 178
18 192. But Murthy pushed back. As one Meta employee who attended the
19 meeting recalled, “One thing from Dr. Murthy mentioned at the end [of the meeting] –
20 perhaps worth including as a signal of things to come? – is a broader concern from a
21 well-being perspective. He talked about how he travels the country and hears concerns
22 from people and questions about whether social media is bad for kids, and how this
23 current health misinfo issue is the first one to figure out for the industry.” 179
24
25 174
Internal email from Nick Clegg to Meta personnel (July 22, 2021, 12:20 AM); see Ex. 36.
175
Id.
26 176
Id.
177
27 Id.
178
Id.
28 179
Id.
38
COMPLAINT
1 193. Ultimately, following the July 23, 2021 meeting, Clegg emailed the
2 Surgeon General to inform him about the steps Meta had taken “just this past week to
3 adjust policies” to “remove” more “misinformation” and further censor the Disinfo
4 Dozen. Clegg added that it heard the Surgeon General’s “call for [Meta] to do more”
5 and would keep him informed on the “4 specific recommendations for improvement”
6 he identified. 180
7 194. Internally, Meta continued to struggle with how to respond to respond to
8 the Biden White House’s unreasonable demands about the Disinformation Dozen,
9 noting in one July 24, 2021 email, for example, that it was “in a tough spot as the WH’s
10 case – while wrong – is very simple: 12 people are responsible for the vast majority of
11 the anti-vaccine content on Meta and they’re (almost) all still active on the platform.”181
12 195. The email noted that “treating some of these people” as it treated
13 “Dangerous Orgs and Individuals” may be the “only approach” that would bring Meta
14 “closer in line with the media/WH/policy elites view that [Meta] should be banning
15 people who repeatedly break [its] rules from all [its] apps.” 182
16 196. Meanwhile, the Biden White House’s pressure campaign, grounded on the
17 CCDH’s false claims, continued. On July 26, 2021, Meta internally noted that given
18 the “unrelenting staying power of the misleading stat that 12 people are responsible for
19 65% of COVID/vaccine misinformation,” featured twice “in comments last week from
20 President Biden,” it felt the need to draft a post about the action it had already taken
21 against the Disinfo Dozen and how their posts represented just a fraction of a percent
22 of Meta’s total vaccine related content, and that, over the past two months, not a single
23 post in Meta’s most-viewed vaccine content was from a Disinfo Dozen-associated
24 account.183
25
26 180
Emails between HHS staff and Meta personnel (July 23, 2021, 5:34 AM); see Ex. 12.
181
27 Internal email from Nick Clegg to Meta personnel (July 24, 2021, 9:40 AM); see Ex. 66.
182
Internal email from Nick Clegg to Meta personnel (July 26, 2021, 11:50 AM); see Ex. 18
28 183
Email from Nick Clegg to Surgeon Gen. Vivek Murthy (July 23, 2021, 7:29 PM); see Ex. 31
39
COMPLAINT
1 I. Meta Succumbs to Insurmountable Coercion as Biden Administration

Forces Content Moderation Policies Changes
2
197. The preceding weeks proved too much coercion and pressure for Meta’s
3
leadership to handle and the order was given from the top: change the company’s
4
content moderation policies as quickly as possible.
5
198. On August 2, 2021, a Meta employee circulated an internal email with the
6
subject line “Urgent help assessing misinfo/misinfo adjacent Policy options.” 184
7
199. In the email, the Meta employee noted that, “Leadership asked Misinfo
8
Policy and a couple of teams on Product Policy to brainstorm some additional policy
9
levers we can pull to be more aggressive against Covid and vaccine misinformation.
10
This is stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the US
11
administration.”185
12
200. Given the intense pressure Meta was under to move quickly, the employee
13
noted that Meta’s Product team had “not had time to fully vet most of these ideas” and
14
Meta’s Data Science team had not “analyze[d] these options” to “fully understand their
15
ultimate on- platform impact.”186
16
201. The employee also noted that the “recommendations [were] specifically
17
targeted at addressing the problem posed by the disinformation dozen accounts
18
continuing to have presences on Meta/Instagram,” adding that, “Most of the
19
problematic content critics such as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)
20
associate with the disinfo dozen are URLs to off-platform content [Meta didn’t] enforce
21
on as a matter of principle.” 187
22
202. As a result, the Meta employee noted that Meta “could change [its] policy
23
approach and start enforcing off platform, but [her team didn’t] support that from a
24
25
26 184
Id.
185
27 Internal email from Meta personnel to Nick Clegg (July 24, 2021, 2:44 PM); see Ex. 15.
186
Id.
28 187
Internal email from Meta personnel to Clegg and other Meta personnel (July 26, 2021, 11:34 AM).
40
COMPLAINT
1 principled perspective,” adding that it also “would be resource intensive to

2 implement.”188
3 203. Given that “blackholing their domains is too blunt, since lots of the content
4 they post on- and off-platform is not even about Covid or vaccines,” the Meta employee
5 “recommend[ed] steps to give less distribution to disinfo dozen URLs so they have less
6 reach and visibility.” 189
7 204. The next day, Meta discussed internally its “touchy relationship with [the
8 Biden White House], which specifically want[ed] [it] to demonstrate additional steps
9 on four issues they’ve raised, including doing more to address the disinfo dozen actors.”
10 As a result, Meta admitted that its “solutions” were “mostly tailored around addressing
11 [the Disinfo Dozen].” 190
12 205. On August 5, 2021, Clegg’s team provided him with an update on Meta’s
13 response “to the four asks from the White House” that were “named in the Surgeon
14 General’s Advisory,” outlining four actions Meta could take to further censor COVID
15 and vaccine related content. 191
16 206. On August 6, 2021, Meta met with Surgeon General Murthy. 192
17 207. Following the meeting, the Surgeon General’s office followed up with
18 Meta, asking if the company could send “an update of any new/additional steps” that it
19 would be “taking with respect to health misinformation in light of the advisory” “within
20 two weeks.”258 Meta replied, stating that it would provide a response within two weeks
21 “outlining [its] approach.” 193
22
23
24
25 188
See Ex. 50.
189
Internal email between Meta personnel (Aug. 2, 2021, 5:39 PM); see Ex. 16.
26 190
Id.
191
27 Id.
192
Id.
28 193
Id.
41
COMPLAINT
1 208. Internal Meta documents indicate that following its meeting with the
2 Surgeon General, Meta met internally and agreed to “further explore four discreet
3 policy options.” 194
4 209. For example, the following day, August 10, Meta emailed internally,
5 noting the Surgeon General office’s request for an update within two weeks, and stating
6 that it would “scope product work” for four changes to further censor vaccine related
7 content and “execute ones that are easy to do.” 195
8 210. Over the next two weeks, Meta internally “scoped the requirements for
9 executing those options.” 196
10 211. On August 19, Meta leadership circulated an internal memo about how the
11 company would respond “to the Surgeon General on COVID-19 misinformation,”
12 which included rolling out the four new measures Meta had prepared following “the
13 continued criticism of [its] approach from the [Biden] administration” to more
14 aggressively censor vaccine hesitancy and alleged misinformation.” 197
15 212. Notably, the day before, on August 18, Meta shared with the Biden White
16 House and Surgeon General’s office a statement it had issued regarding how Meta was
17 handling the Disinfo Dozen as outlined in CCDH’s report. 198
18 213. In the statement, Meta declared that “there isn’t any evidence” to support
19 CCDH’s claim that “12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine
20 misinformation on Meta,” noting that “these 12 people are responsible for about just
21 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Meta.” 199
22
194
23 Id.
195
Internal message between Meta personnel (Aug. 3, 2021, 9:46 AM); see Ex. 51.
196
24 Id.
197
Internal email from Meta staff to Nick Clegg (Aug. 19, 2021, 4:24 PM); see Ex. 57.
25 198
Email from Meta personnel to White house and HHS staff (August 18, 2021, 2:16 PM); see Ex.
54; see also Monika Bickert, How We’re Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation
26
Superspreaders, META (Aug. 18, 2021), https://about.fb.com/news/2021/08/taking-action-against-
27 vaccine-misinformation-superspreaders/.
199
Monika Bickert, How We’re Taking Action Against Vaccine Misinformation Superspreaders,
28 META (Aug. 18, 2021).
42
COMPLAINT
1 214. Meta then added that CCDH’s report, contrary to its claims, did not
2 analyze, or provide evidence that it analyzed, representative samples of Meta posts
3 about COVID-19 vaccines nor did CCDH provide an explanation for how it defined or
4 identified content it considered to be “anti-vax” or how it chose the 30 groups included
5 in its analysis. 200
6 215. Nevertheless, on August 20, Meta emailed Surgeon General Murthy to
7 him update him on the new policy changes it was making and “stronger action” it was
8 taking to censor vaccine related content, including the Disinfo Dozen, following
9 pressure from the Biden Administration. 201
10 216. The next day, Meta internally noted that “everyone is neck deep right now
11 in WH [White House] response.” 202
12 217. On August 23, Meta began putting together “the actions that [it] took
13 against the DD [Disinfo Dozen]” to add to its email report back to Surgeon General
14 Murthy, although one Meta employee noted that “nothing we say will be persuasive to
15 that crew.” 203
16 218. The same day, the Surgeon General’s office sent a follow-up email,
17 thanking Meta for capitulating to its demands and noting that it looked forward to
18 “continuing to move forward together with urgency and solutions.” 204
19 219. And with that, the Biden Administration’s censorship campaign had
20 completed its mission: one of the world’s largest social media platforms again
21 succumbed to pressure and violated its own principles to appease a powerful
22 government office.
23 220. The very next day, on August 24, 2021, the Department of Defense
24 Secretary, issued the DoD Order requiring all servicemembers to become vaccinated.
25
200
Id.
26 201
Email from Nick Clegg to Surgeon Gen. Vivek Murthy (Aug. 20, 2021, 3:08 PM); see Ex. 58.
202
27 Internal messages between Meta personnel (July 21, 2021, 9:28 AM); see Ex. 59.
203
Internal messages between Meta personnel (July 23, 2021, 12:28 PM); see Ex. 44.
28 204
Email from HHS staff to Clegg and Surgeon Gen. Murthy (Aug. 23, 2021, 7:43 AM); see Ex. 58
43
COMPLAINT
1 221. On September 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order No.

2 140439 (“E.O. 14043”), which inter alia ordered all executive agencies to implement a
3 program “requiring COVID-19 vaccination for all of its federal employees, with
4 exceptions only as required by law”205 (the “Vaccine Mandate”).
5 222. Hours after announcing the vaccine mandate, however, Plaintiff posted to
6 his social media account that he would be bringing a lawsuit against the Biden
7 Administration over the unconstitutional vaccine mandate to protect the rights of
8 Americans.
9 223. Within hours, the post was suppressed and removed from both Instagram
10 and Facebook, and thereafter vigorously throttled Plaintiff’s account downward to the
11 point of virtually no engagement.
12 II. MISINFORMATION VS. FACT: A DIFFERENCE OF 8-12 MONTHS
13 224. Social media platforms are forums in which millions of Americans obtain
14 their news and information; when information is controlled, suppressed, or censored,
15 perception nationwide is altered, and it can drastically change the course of an entire
16 nation by the injection of inaccurate or false information into the minds of Americans (or
17 alternatively, by prohibiting the dissemination of true, correct information––as is the case
18 here).
19 225. Meta’s Facebook has close to 3 billion registered users worldwide and
20 over 124 million users in the United States, including Plaintiff.
21 226. According to a recent Pew Research study, 66 percent of U.S. adults use
22 Facebook, and 31 percent of U.S. adults say they get news regularly on Facebook.206
23 227. According to the same study, 41 percent of U.S. adults say that they use
24 Instagram, and 11 percent of U.S. adults say they regularly get news on Instagram. Id.
25
26 205
Exec. Order No. 14043, § 2, 88 F.R. 175 (Sept. 9, 2021).
206
27 Walker et al., News Consumption Across Social Media in 2021, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Sept.
20, 2021), at citizenag.link/tybco4c.
28
44
COMPLAINT
1 228. The free flow of information and expression on social media directly
2 affects non- users of social media as well. Social-media users who are exposed to
3 information, ideas, and expression through social media communicate the same
4 information, ideas, and expression with non-social-media users. News, information,
5 messages, narratives, and storylines that originate on social media are frequently
6 replicated in other forums, such as television, print media, and private discourse. Further,
7 much content posted on social-media is directly available to non-social-media users. For
8 example, posts on Facebook and Instagram are directly accessible on the internet to non-
9 Facebook-users and non-Instagram-users, and the general public at large, as well.
10 229. In the aggregate, these numbers of Americans who (1) use Meta’s
11 platforms, and (2) regularly use Meta’s platforms to obtain news and information about
12 matters of public interest, comprise hundreds of millions of Americans, including
13 information Plaintiff shares, including the aforementioned post expressly removed
14 because of the Biden Administration’s direction, control, coercion, and/or pressure.
15 230. There are also many ways for social-media companies to censor or
16 suppress speech on social-media platforms. Some of these methods are immediately
17 known to the speaker and/or his or her audience, and some are not visible to them.
18 Censorship, therefore, can occur without the knowledge of the speaker and/or his or her
19 audience.
20 231. These methods include, but are not limited to, terminating speakers’
21 accounts, suspending accounts, imposing warnings or strike against accounts to chill
22 future disfavored speech, “shadow banning” speakers, demonetizing content, adjusting

23 algorithms to suppress or de-emphasize speakers or messages, promoting or demoting
24 content, placing warning labels on content, suppressing content in other users’ feeds,
25 promoting negative comments on disfavored content, and requiring additional click-
26 through(s) to access content, among many others.
27
28
45
COMPLAINT
1 232. Many methods, moreover, have a chilling effect on social- media speech,
2 as the threat of censorship (such as suspension, demonetization, or banning) drives
3 speakers to self-censor to avoid making statements that might be deemed to violate the
4 social- media companies’ vague, ever-changing, often-hidden, and inconsistently
5 enforced standards for censoring and suppressing speech. Collectively herein, all these
6 methods of suppressing and/or censoring speech on social media are called “censorship”
7 and/or “suppression” of social-media speech.
8 233. The censorship and suppression of free speech on social media functions
9 in most cases as a prior restraint on speech, both through its direct effect and its chilling
10 effects. A prior restraint is the most severe form of restriction on freedom of expression.
11 (i) Policing “Misinformation” or “Disinformation” on Facebook and
Instagram Has Proven Embarrassingly Inaccurate.
12
234. The “misinformation” of yesterday becomes today’s viable theory, which
13
in turn, becomes tomorrow’s established fact. “Even where there is a wide scholarly
14
consensus concerning a particular matter, the truth is served by allowing that consensus
15
to be challenged without fear of reprisal. Today’s accepted wisdom sometimes turns out
16
to be mistaken.” Alvarez, at 752 (Alito, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). This prediction
17
has proven true, again and again, when it comes to suppressing “misinformation” and
18
“disinformation” on social media.
19
A. Speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins.
20
235. As early as February 2020, Meta began censored speech concerning the
21
lab-leak theory of the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The lab-
22
leak theory postulates that the virus did not originate naturally in bats or other animals,
23
but leaked from a biotech laboratory in Wuhan, China, operated by the Wuhan Institute
24
of Virology.
25
236. On information and belief, Defendant Dr. Anthony Fauci, a senior federal
26
government official, coordinating with others, orchestrated a campaign to discredit the
27
lab-leak hypothesis in early 2020. As director of NIAID, Dr. Fauci had funded risky
28
46
COMPLAINT
1 “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries

2 such as EcoHealth Alliance, headed by Dr. Peter Daszak. Thus, if the lab-leak theory
3 were established, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Daszak could be potentially implicated in funding
4 the research on viruses that caused the COVID-19 pandemic and killed millions of people
5 worldwide
6 237. During the same time frame as he was orchestrating a campaign to falsely
7 discredit the lab-leak theory, Dr. Fauci was exchanging emails with Mark Zuckerberg,
8 the CEO of Facebook, regarding public messaging and the dissemination of COVID-19
9 information on social- media. On information and belief, Dr. Fauci coordinated directly
10 with Facebook and/or other social-media firms to suppress disfavored speakers and
11 content of speech on social media.
12 238. Not surprisingly, social-media platforms like Facebook promptly accepted
13 Dr. Fauci’s initiative to discredit the lab-leak theory, and they engaged in an aggressive
14 campaign to censor speech advocating for the lab-leak theory on social media on the
15 ground that it was supposedly disinformation. Facebook “expand[ed] its content
16 moderation on Covid-19 to include ‘false’ and ‘debunked’ claims such as that ‘COVID-
17 19 is man-made or manufactured.’”207
18 239. This included suppressing speech by highly credentialed and well-
19 respected writers, such as “science journalist Nicholas Wade,” id., and scientist Alina
20 Chan. Other social-media platforms likewise censored speech advocating for the lab-leak
21 hypothesis.
22 240. By 2021, however, “the circumstantial evidence” favoring the lab-leak

23 theory “finally permeated the insular world of progressive public health,” id., and Fauci
24 and other Biden Administration officials were forced to admit the theory’s inherent
25 plausibility. After a long period of censorship, in May 2021, Facebook and other
26
27
207
Editorial Board, Meta’s Lab-Leak About-Face, WALL STREET JOURNAL. (May 27, 2021), available
28 at: https://citizenag.link/53z.
47
COMPLAINT
1 platforms announced that they would no longer censor social-media speech advocating
2 for the lab-leak theory.
3 241. The Wall Street Journal noted the close link between government and
4 social-media platforms in censoring this speech: “Facebook acted in lockstep with the
5 government,” indicating that “[w]hile a political or scientific claim is disfavored by
6 government authorities, Facebook will limit its reach. When government reduces its
7 hostility toward an idea, so will Facebook.” Id. “Free speech protects the right to
8 challenge government. But instead of acting as private actors with their own speech
9 rights, the companies are mandating conformity with existing government views.” Id.
10 242. There had long been credible—even compelling—evidence of the
11 plausibility of the lab-leak theory, long before social-media companies stopped censoring
12 it.208
13 243. Facebook’s decision to stop censoring the lab-leak theory did not come
14 until “after almost every major media outlet, and … even the British and American
15 security services, finally confirmed that it is a feasible possibility.”209 Facebook admitted
16 that its decision to end censorship was made “in consultation with” government officials,
17 i.e., “public health experts.” Id.
18 244. The reach of Facebook’s censorship alone (to say nothing of other
19 platforms that censored the lab-leak theory) was enormous. Facebook “displayed
20 ‘warnings’” on such supposed COVID-19-related misinformation, and claimed that
21 “[w]hen people saw those warning labels, 95% of the time they did not go on to view the
22 original content.” Id. “Moreover, if an article is rated ‘false’ by their ‘fact checkers’, the
23 network will ‘reduce its distribution’. This means that, while an author or poster is not
24
208
See, e.g., House Foreign Affairs Committee Minority Staff Report, The Origins of COVID-19: An
25 Investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Aug. 2021), https://rb.gy/v8at4c (detailing evidence
available long before censorship lifted); Nicholas Wade, The origin of COVID: Did people or nature
26
open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?, BULL ATOMIC SCIENTISTS (May 5, 2021), https://rb.gy/pazgz2;
27 ALINA CHAN, VIRAL: THE SEARCH FOR THE ORIGIN OF COVID-19 (Sept. 3, 2021).
209
Freddie Sayers, How Meta censored the lab leak theory, UNHERD (May 31, 2021), available at:
28 https://citizenag.link/746.
48
COMPLAINT
1 aware that censorship is taking place, the network could be hiding their content so it is
2 not widely disseminated.” Id.
3 245. Notably, Meta has already admitted that it wrongfully censored speech on
4 the lab-leak theory for over a year, announcing that its platforms would be “now
5 extending its policy of ‘shadow-banning’ accounts that promote misinformation.
6 ‘Starting today, we will reduce the distribution of all posts in News Feed from an
7 individual’s Facebook account if they repeatedly share content that has been rated by one
8 of our fact-checking partners.’

9 246. So now, if you share something deemed to contain misinformation
10 multiple times, your account could be silenced; you won’t be informed, you won’t know
11 to what degree your content will be hidden and you won’t know how long it will last—
12 all thanks to group of ‘fact-checkers’ whose authority cannot be questioned.” Id.
13 247. It is astonishing that “this announcement was made on the very same day
14 as Facebook’s admission of error” on the lab-leak theory. Id.
15 B. Speech about the efficacy of masking and COVID-19 lockdowns
16 248. Social-media platforms also aggressively censored speech questioning the
17 efficacy of masks and lockdowns as COVID-19 mitigation measures. Yet evidence
18 revealed that concerns about the efficacy of these measures were well-founded.
19 249. For example, on information and belief, Twitter’s “COVID-19 misleading
20 information policy,” as of December 2021, noted that Twitter will censor (label or
21 remove) speech claiming that “face masks … do not work to reduce transmission or to
22 protect against COVID- 19,” among many other restrictions.210

23 250. On information and belief, both Facebook and Instagram have imposed
24 similar policies, imposing censorship on speech questioning the efficacy of masks and
25 the efficacy of lockdowns as COVID- 19 mitigation measures.
26
27
28 210
See Twitter, Covid-19 misleading information policy, https://rb.gy/laqelr.
49
COMPLAINT
1 251. Facebook suppressed a scientist for citing a peer-reviewed study “by a

2 team of researchers in Germany who established an online registry for thousands of
3 parents to report on the impact of masks on their children. More than half of those who
4 responded said that masks were giving their children headaches and making it difficult
5 for them to concentrate. More than a third cited other problems, including malaise,
6 impaired learning, drowsiness and fatigue.” Id.
7 252. On November 21, 2020, “[t]wo leading Oxford University academics …
8 accused Facebook of ‘censorship’ after it claimed an article they wrote on face masks
9 amounted to ‘false information’.” Two top Oxford academics accuse Facebook of
10 censorship for branding their article on whether masks work ‘false information.’”211
11 253. No convincing evidence supported the efficacy of mask mandates, while
12 compelling evidence contradicted it, both before and after their implementation.
13 Tracking the aggregate case numbers in States with and without mask mandates over the
14 course of the COVID- 19 pandemic, in a “natural experiment,” demonstrates that mask
15 mandates made “zero difference.”212
16 254. Both case rates and mortality rates were “virtually identical.” Id. Indeed,
17 “mask mandates were implemented without scientific justification,” and “they failed
18 around the world.” Id. “In their pre-Covid planning strategies for a pandemic, neither the
19 Centers for Disease Control nor the World Health Organization had recommended
20 masking the public—for good reason.
21 255. Randomized clinical trials involving flu viruses had shown, contrary to
22 popular wisdom in Japan and other Asian countries, that there was ‘no evidence that face
23 masks are effective in reducing transmission,’ as the WHO summarized the scientific
24 literature.” Id. “Anthony Fauci acknowledged this evidence early in the pandemic, both
25 in his public comments (‘There’s no reason to be walking around with masks,’ he told
26
211
27 DAILY MAIL (Nov. 21, 2020), https://citizenag.link/s9i.
212
John Tierney, The Failed COVID Policy of Mask Mandates, CITY J. (April 19, 2022),
28 https://citizenag.link/12t.
50
COMPLAINT
1 60 Minutes) and in his private emails (‘I do not recommend you wear a mask,’ he told a
2 colleague, explaining that masks were too porous to block the small Covid virus).” Id.
3 “Instead of carefully analyzing the effects of masks, the CDC repeatedly tried to justify
4 them by misrepresenting short-term trends and hyping badly flawed research, like studies
5 in Arizona and Kansas purporting to show that infections had been dramatically reduced
6 by the mask mandates imposed in some counties. But in each state, … infection rates
7 remained lower in the counties that did not mandate masks.”213
8 256. Ironically, Plaintiff had his post permanently removed simply because he
9 announced that he would be filing a lawsuit against Biden over what was, and always
10 has been, the unconstitutional vaccine mandates. This exemplifies the danger of
11 government involvement in social media censorship: preventing a constitutional lawyer
12 from conveying to the public his intent to defend their rights, simply because the
13 Administration in charge is the very threat to the rights sought to be protected.
14 257. Likewise, no convincing evidence supported the efficacy of lockdowns.
15 Quite the contrary. In January 2022, a Johns Hopkins meta-analysis reviewed the
16 efficacy of lockdowns as a COVID-19 mitigation measure and found that they had
17 minimal impact, if any, on COVID-19 mortality rates. The study reached “the conclusion
18 that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality… [L]ockdowns in
19 Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average….
20 While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health
21 effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been
22 adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a

23 pandemic policy instrument.”214
24 258. On December 21, 2021, Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN medical commentator and
25 strong advocate for COVID-19 restrictions, tweeted that “cloth masks are little more than
26 213
Id.; see also, e.g., Ian Miller, UNMASKED: THE GLOBAL FAILURE OF COVID MASK MANDATES
27 (Jan. 20, 2022).
214
Herby et al., A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19
28 Mortality, Studies Applied Economics (Jan. 2022), available at https://citizenag.link/ebj.
51
COMPLAINT
1 facial decorations.”215 Twitter did not censor this tweet, even though it undermined the
2 efficacy of mask mandates that permitted the use of cloth masks (i.e., virtually all of
3 them)—undoubtedly because it was advocating for more aggressive mitigation measures
4 (i.e., higher-quality masks than cloth masks), not less.
5 259. “On September 26, 2021, CDC Director Walensky cited an Arizona study
6 to claim that schools without mask mandates were 3.5 times more likely to experience
7 COVID-19 outbreaks. However, the study is so flawed that experts have said it ‘should
8 not have entered into the public discourse’ and that you ‘can’t learn anything’ about mask
9 rules from the study.”216
10 260. Yet Director Walensky’s statement circulated widely on social media
11 without being censored.
12 c. Speech about election integrity and the security of voting by mail
13 261. In or around 2020, social-media platforms began aggressively censoring
14 speech that raised concerns about the security of voting by mail, a major election-security
15 issue. Notoriously, social-media platforms aggressively censored core political speech
16 by then-President Trump and the Trump campaign raising concerns about the security of
17 voting by mail in the run- up to the November 2020 presidential election.
18 262. This censorship is ironic because, for many years before 2020, it was a
19 common left-wing talking point to claim that fraud occurred in voting by mail. In
20 opposing photo-ID requirements for in-person voting, Democrats and their allies
21 frequently claimed that photo IDs for in-person voting were pointless because voting by
22 mail, not in-person voting, presented the real opportunities for fraud.
23 263. These Democratic claims of fraud in voting by mail were widely parroted
24 in mainstream media for many years. For example, in 2012, the New York Times wrote
25
26 215
Leana Wen: ‘Cloth Masks Are Little More Than Facial Decorations’, REASON, at
27 https://citizenag.link/vw2.
216
March 11, 2022 Letter of U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, et al., to Surgeon General Murthy,
28 at https://citizenag.link/gum.
52
COMPLAINT
1 that “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and
2 more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.”217
3 264. In 2012, The Washington Post published an articles stating that “[i]t may
4 still be possible to steal an American election, if you know the right way to go about it,”
5 citing a case in which “[c]onspirators allegedly bought off absentee voters” and “faked
6 absentee ballots.”218
7 265. In 2014, MSNBC claimed: “Indeed, election experts say absentee ballot
8 fraud is the most common form of organized voter fraud, since, because of the secret
9 ballot, there’s no way to ensure that an in-person voter is voting for the candidate he
10 promised to.” 219
11 266. In 2016, Slate claimed, in a piece titled, “Voter Fraud Exists. Republican
12 Restrictions Won’t Stop It,” that “[t]he vast majority of voter fraud prosecutions touted
13 by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation involve absentee ballots that were
14 illegally cast. And the only voting fraud schemes with the potential to actually swing
15 elections involved mail-in ballots.”220
16 267. Many other authorities confirm the reasonableness of concerns about
17 security of voting by mail. For example, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board,
18 the U.S. Supreme Court held that fraudulent voting “perpetrated using absentee ballots”
19 demonstrates “that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the
20 outcome of a close election.” 553 U.S. 181, 195–96 (2008) (opinion of Stevens, J.)
21 (emphasis added).
22
23
217
24 Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises, available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as- more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-
25 elections.html
218
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/selling-votes-is-common-type-of-
26
election-fraud/2012/10/01/f8f5045a-071d-11e2-81ba-ffe35a7b6542_story.html.
219
27 https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/greg-abbott-bogus-voter-fraud-crusade-msna291356
220
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/voter-fraud-exists-through-absentee-ballots-but-
28 republicans-wont-stop-it.html.
53
COMPLAINT
1 268. The bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform—

2 co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A.
3 Baker—determined that “[a]bsentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter
4 fraud.”221
5 269. According to the Carter-Baker Commission, “[a]bsentee balloting is
6 vulnerable to abuse in several ways.” Id. “Blank ballots mailed to the wrong address or
7 to large residential buildings might be intercepted.” Id. “Citizens who vote at home, at
8 nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and
9 subtle, or to intimidation.” Id. “Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when
10 citizens vote by mail.” Id. Thus, the Commission noted that “absentee balloting in other
11 states has been a major source of fraud.” Id. at 35. It emphasized that voting by mail
12 “increases the risk of fraud.” Id. And the Commission recommended that “States … need
13 to do more to prevent … absentee ballot fraud.” Id. at v.
14 270. The U.S. Department of Justice’s 2017 Manual on Federal Prosecution of
15 Election Offenses, published by its Public Integrity Section, states: “Absentee ballots are
16 particularly susceptible to fraudulent abuse because, by definition, they are marked and
17 cast outside the presence of election officials and the structured environment of a polling
18 place.”222
19 271. This Manual reports that “the more common ways” that election-fraud
20 “crimes are committed include … [o]btaining and marking absentee ballots without the
21 active input of the voters involved.” Id. at 28.
22 272. The Manual also notes that “[a]bsentee ballot frauds” committed both with
23 and without the voter’s participation are “common” forms of election fraud. Id. at 29.
24 273. Thus, social-media censorship that has occurred since 2020 to suppress
25 speech raising concerns about the security of voting by mail would, if applied even-
26 221
BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON FEDERAL ELECTION
27 REFORM, at 46, https://citizenag.link/txe.
222
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 28 (8th ed. Dec. 2017), at
28 https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download.
54
COMPLAINT
1 handedly, suppress statements about the risks of fraud in mail-in voting by the United
2 States Supreme Court, the Carter-Baker Commission co-chaired by President Jimmy
3 Carter, and the U.S. Department of Justice’s prosecution manual for election-integrity
4 crimes. One would not be able to quote Justice Stevens’ opinion for the Supreme Court
5 in Crawford on social media if it followed its own rules. Raising concerns about election
6 integrity, and questioning the security of voting by mail, became unspeakable on social
7 media only after it became expedient for the Democratic Party and the political Left to
8 suppress these ideas, viewpoints, and concerns.

9 274. This censorship of speech, speakers, and viewpoints on such topics and
10 concerns continues to this day, at Defendants’ instigation, as alleged further herein.
11 275. There is a common theme to all these examples of wrong-headed
12 censorship: Each involved censoring truthful or reliable information that contradicted
13 left-wing political narratives. What led to the censorship was not the fact that the speech
14 was supposedly false, but that the message was politically inconvenient for Democratic
15 officials and government-preferred narratives. As a result, the ability of politicians and
16 social-media platforms to reliably identify actual “misinformation” and “disinformation”
17 has been proven false, again and again.
18 276. On information and belief, the individual Defendants and those acting in
19 concert with them have conspired and colluded to suppress Americans’ First Amendment
20 and analogous state-law rights to freedom of expression on social-media platforms, and
21 to be exposed to free expression on such platforms, and they have taken many overt
22 actions to achieve this goal.

23 277. Section 230 of the CDA subsidized, protected, and fostered the creation of
24 speech- censorship policies in a small, concentrated group of social-media firms.
25 278. First, Meta did not act in a vacuum, and it did not act as a internet service
26 provider. For decades, the federal government has artificially encouraged, protected,
27 fostered, and subsidized the aggregation of control over speech, including the specific
28
55
COMPLAINT
1 power of censorship, by a small group of powerful social-media firms––and in 2020-21,

2 these tactics turned into blatant and significant coercion.
3 279. In particular, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA)
4 artificially empowered and subsidized the growth of social-media companies and their
5 censorship policies by effectively immunizing much censorship on social media from
6 liability. Section 230’s unique liability shield fostered the aggregation of power in the
7 field into a concentrated cluster of powerful social-media firms, and it directly fostered,
8 protected, and encouraged the development of speech- censorship policies. This process
9 was greatly accelerated and enhanced by the social-media platforms’ success in
10 convincing courts to adopt ever-broadening interpretations of Section 230 immunity,
11 which stray beyond the statutes’ text.
12 280. “Historically, at least two legal doctrines limited a company’s right to
13 exclude.” Knight First Amendment Institute, 141 S. Ct. at 1222 (Thomas, J., concurring).
14 “First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain
15 businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general
16 requirement to serve all comers.” Id. “Second, governments have limited a company’s
17 right to exclude when that company is a public accommodation. This concept—related
18 to common-carrier law—applies to companies that hold themselves out to the public but
19 do not ‘carry’ freight, passengers, or communications.” Id. Absent the artificial immunity
20 created by the overly expansive interpretations of Section 230 immunity, these legal
21 doctrines, and free-market forces, would impose a powerful check on content- and
22 viewpoint-based censorship by social-media platforms. See id.

23 281. The CDA was enacted in 1996 for the purpose of promoting the growth of
24 internet commerce and protecting against the transmission of obscene materials to
25 children over the internet. It was intended to “offer a forum for a true diversity of political
26 discourse,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(a)(3), but in recent years Defendants have exploited it to
27 produce the opposite effect.

28
56
COMPLAINT
1 282. Section 230 of the CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230, provides unique liability
2 protections for internet publishers of information, such as social-media companies,
3 which are not available to other publishers, such as those of printed media. Section
4 230(c)(1) provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
5 treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
6 content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). In other words, social-media firms are
7 generally protected from liability for what their users post.
8 283. Section 230(c)(2), however, also provides that: “No provider or user of an
9 interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily
10 taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user
11 considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
12 otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” 47
13 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Courts have interpreted Section 230 broadly—
14 beyond its plain textual import—to shield social-media platforms from liability for
15 censoring anything they deem “objectionable,” even if it is constitutionally protected
16 speech.
17 284. This reading is unreasonable and exceeds what Congress authorized.
18 Viewpoint and content-based discrimination—now widely practiced by social-media
19 platforms—are the antithesis of “good faith.” Id.
20 285. Moreover, Congress intended the “otherwise objectionable” material in §
21 230(c)(2)(A) to refer only to content similar to “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
22 excessively violent, [and] harassing” content referred to in the same list. Id. But social-
23 media companies have interpreted this liability shield unreasonably broadly, and have
24 convinced courts to adopt overbroad interpretations of Section 230 immunity. See, e.g.,
25 Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC, 141 S. Ct. 13, 15 (2020)
26 (statement of Thomas, J., respecting the denial of certiorari) (“[C]ourts have extended
27 the immunity in § 230 far beyond anything that plausibly could have been intended by
28
57
COMPLAINT
1 Congress.”); id. at 15-18 (discussing and criticizing the overbroad reading of § 230
2 liability that has shielded social-media firms).
3 286. These platforms, therefore, have the best of both worlds: They claim that
4 they are exempt from liability if they leave even atrocious content posted, but they are
5 also exempt from liability if they censor anything they deem “objectionable, whether or
6 not such material is constitutionally protected.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(A).
7 287. Further, Section 230 of the CDA purportedly shields such platforms from
8 liability for colluding with other social-media platforms on how to censor speech: “No
9 provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of …
10 (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or
11 others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).” 47
12 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2)(B). On information and belief, social-media platforms do, in fact,
13 extensively coordinate with one another in censoring social- media speech.
14 288. Section 230 also purports to preempt any state law to the contrary: “No
15 cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local
16 law that is inconsistent with this section.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).
17 289. On information and belief, the immunity provided by Section 230 of the
18 CDA directly contributed to the rise of a small number of extremely powerful social-
19 media platforms, who have now turned into a “censorship cartel.” The liability shield
20 provided by the federal government artificially subsidized, fostered, and encouraged the
21 viewpoint and content-based censorship policies that those platforms have adopted at
22 Defendants’ urging.
23 290. On information and belief, social-media firms greatly value the immunity
24 provided by § 230 of the CDA, which continues to provide them with artificial liability
25 protections, and credible threats to amend or repeal that immunity are powerful
26 motivators to those platforms. Defendants are aware of this.
27
28
58
COMPLAINT
1 291. On information and belief, the largest and most powerful social-media
2 firms are also greatly concerned about antitrust liability and enforcement, given their
3 dominance in the social-media market(s), and credible threats to impose antitrust liability
4 and/or enforcement are powerful motivators to those platforms as well. Defendants are
5 aware of this too.
6 292. The campaign of threats against social-media companies to demand
7 censorship.
8 293. Defendant Biden, his political allies, and those acting in concert with him
9 have a long history of threatening to use official government authority to impose adverse
10 legal consequences against social-media companies if such companies do not increase
11 censorship of speakers and messages disfavored by Biden and his political allies.
12 Common threats of adverse legal and/or regulatory consequences include the threat of
13 antitrust enforcement or legislation, and the threat of amending or repealing the liability
14 protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), among others,
15 if social-media companies fail to engage in more aggressive censorship of viewpoints,
16 content, and speakers disfavored by Defendants. These threats are effective because they
17 address legal matters of critical concern to dominant social-media firms.
18 294. Defendants have leveraged these threats to secure such increased
19 censorship of speakers, content, and viewpoints that they disfavor on social-media
20 platforms; and they have now moved into a phase of open collusion with the threatened
21 companies, cooperating with them directly to censor speech, speakers, and viewpoints
22 that Defendants disfavor.

23 295. Threats from Biden, senior government officials in the Biden
24 administration, and those acting in concert with them come in the context of a history of
25 such threats from senior federal officials politically allied with them. These threats have
26 routinely linked (1) the prospect of official government action in the form of adverse
27 legislation, regulation, or agency action— especially threats of antitrust legislation

28
59
COMPLAINT
1 and/or enforcement and calls to amend or repeal Section 230 of the CDA, among
2 others—with (2) calls for more aggressive censorship and suppression of speakers,
3 viewpoints, and messages that these officials disfavor. Recent examples include, but are
4 by no means limited to, the following:
5 296. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, April 12, 2019: “I do think that for the privilege of
6 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question
7 that that could be removed.”223
8 297. Senator Mark Warner, Oct. 28, 2020: “It saddens me that some of my
9 colleagues have joined in the Trump Administration’s cynical and concerted effort to
10 bully platforms into allowing dark money groups, right-wing militias and even the
11 President himself to continue to exploit social media platforms to sow disinformation,
12 engage in targeted harassment, and suppress voter participation. We can and should have
13 a conversation about Section 230—and the ways in which it has enabled platforms to
14 turn a blind eye as their platforms are used to facilitate discrimination and civil rights
15 violations, enable domestic terrorist groups to organize violence in plain sight, assist in
16 stalking and networked harassment campaigns, and enable online frauds targeted at
17 vulnerable users….”224
18 298. Then-Senator Kamala Harris, Sept. 30, 2019: “Look, let’s be honest,
19 Donald Trump’s Twitter account should be suspended.”225
20 299. “Hey @jack [i.e., Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey]. Time to do something about
21 this,” providing picture of a tweet from President Trump.226
22 223
Nancy Pelosi warns tech companies that Section 230 is ‘in jeopardy’, TECH CRUNCH (April 12,
23 2019), at https://citizenag.link/929438. (“When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as
a ‘gift’ to tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business…. ‘It is a gift to
24 them and I don’t think that they are treating it with the respect that they should, and so I think that that
could be a question mark and in jeopardy… I do think that for the privilege of 230, there has to be a
25 bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed.’”).
224
Statement of U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner on Section 230 Hearing (Oct. 28, 2020), at
26
https://citizenag.link/1x2.
225
27 Kamala Harris says Trump’s Twitter account should be suspended, CNN.com (Sept. 30, 2019), at
https://rb.gy/7valll; see also https://rb.gy/1nle3e.
28 226
Then-Senator Kamala Harris, https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1179193225325826050.
60
COMPLAINT
1 300. Senator Richard Blumenthal, Nov. 17, 2020: “I have urged, in fact, a
2 breakup of tech giants.
3 301. Because they’ve misused their bigness and power. … And indeed Section
4 230 reform, meaningful reform, including even possible repeal in large part because their
5 immunity is way too broad and victims of their harms deserve a day in court.” Breaking
6 the News: Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election Before the S. Comm. on
7 Judiciary, 116th Cong. at 36:10–15 (2020) (statement of Sen. Richard Blumenthal).
8 302. Senator Mazie Hirono, Feb. 5, 2021: “Sec 230 was supposed to incentivize
9 internet platforms to police harmful content by users. Instead, the law acts as a shield
10 allowing them to turn a blind eye.227
11 303. March 2021 Joint Hearing of the Communications and Technology
12 Subcommittee, Joint Statement of Democratic Committee Chairs: “This hearing will
13 continue the Committee’s work of holding online platforms accountable for the growing
14 rise of misinformation and disinformation. ... For far too long, big tech has failed to
15 acknowledge the role they’ve played in fomenting and elevating blatantly false
16 information to its online audiences. Industry self-regulation has failed. We must begin
17 the work of changing incentives driving social media companies to allow and even
18 promote misinformation and disinformation.”228
19 304. On April 20, 2022, twenty-two Democratic members of Congress sent a
20 letter to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook (n/k/a “Meta Platforms, Inc.”), demanding that
21 Facebook increase censorship of “Spanish-language disinformation across its
22 platforms.” The letter claimed that “disinformation” was a threat to democracy, and it
23 made explicit threats of adverse legislative action if Facebook/Meta did not increase
24
25 227
The Safe Tech Act brings 230 into the modern age and makes platforms accountable for the harm
they cause.” https://citizenag.link/g3u.
26 228
Yaël Eisenstat & Justin Hendrix, A Dozen Experts with Questions Congress Should Ask the Tech
27 CEOs—On Disinformation and Extremism, JUST SECURITY (Mar. 25, 2021),
https://rebrand.ly/a5d8d9.
28
61
COMPLAINT
1 censorship: “The spread of these narratives demonstrate that Meta does not see the
2 problem of Spanish-language disinformation in the United States as a critical priority for
3 the health of our democracy. The lack of Meta’s action to swiftly address Spanish-
4 language misinformation globally demonstrates the need for Congress to act to ensure
5 Spanish-speaking communities have fair access to trustworthy information.”
6 305. The letter demanded information about Facebook’s censorship policies on
7 election-related speech for the upcoming elections: “How is Meta preparing to
8 proactively detect and address foreign disinformation operations targeted at Spanish-

9 speaking communities for future elections within the United States, including the 2022
10 primaries and general election? … [W]hat new steps has Meta taken to ensure the
11 effectiveness of its algorithmic content detection policies to address disinformation and
12 hate- speech across different languages?”229
13 306. Comments from two House Members summarize this campaign of
14 pressure and threats: “In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook
15 and Google that they had ‘better’ restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful
16 content or face regulation: ‘We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong,
17 and we’re going to hold them very accountable.’ New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added:
18 ‘Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.’” 230
19 307. Defendants’ political allies have repeatedly used congressional hearings
20 as forums to advance these threats of adverse legislation if social-media platforms do not
21 increase censorship of speakers, speech, content, and viewpoints they disfavor. They
22 have repeatedly used such hearings to berate social-media firm leaders, such as Meta’s
23
229
24 April 20, 2022 Letter of Rep. Tony Cardenas, et al., at
https://cardenas.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Meta%20RT%20and%20Spanish%20Language%20D
25 isinformation%20Congressional%20Letter%20Final.pdf.
230
Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld, Editorial, Save the Constitution from Big Tech:
26
Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Meta censorship a free-speech violation,
27 WALL ST. J. (Jan. 11, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from- big-tech-
11610387105.
28
62
COMPLAINT
1 Mark Zuckerberg to make threats of adverse legal consequences if censorship is not

2 increased.
3 308. Such hearings include, but are not limited to, those cited above, as well as
4 an antitrust hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on July 29, 2020; a Senate
5 Judiciary Committee hearing on November 17, 2020; and a House Energy and
6 Commerce Hearing on March 25, 2021.
7 309. The flip side of such threats, of course, is the implied “carrot” of retaining
8 Section 230 immunity and avoiding antitrust scrutiny, allowing the major social-media
9 platforms to retain their legally privileged status that is worth billions of dollars of market
10 share
11 310. Starting in or around 2020, if not before, social-media firms have
12 responded to these threats by engaging in increasingly more aggressive censorship of
13 speakers, messages, and viewpoints disfavored by Defendants, senior government
14 officials, and the political left. “With all the attention paid to online misinformation, it’s
15 easy to forget that the big [social-media] platforms generally refused to remove false
16 content purely because it was false until 2020.”231
17 311. On information and belief, it was in response to such threats of adverse
18 legal consequences that social-media companies ramped up censorship in 2020,
19 disproportionately targeting speakers and viewpoints on the political right. On
20 information and belief, the examples of censorship of truthful and reliable speech in
21 2020, cited above, were motivated in whole or in part by such threats.
22 312. Then-candidate and now-President Biden has led this charge. He has
23 tripled down on these threats of adverse official action from his colleagues and allies in
24 senior federal- government positions. His threats of adverse government action have
25 been among the most vociferous, and among the most clearly linked to calls for more
26 aggressive censorship of disfavored speakers and speech by social-media companies.
27
231
Gilead Edelman, Beware the Never-Ending Disinformation Emergency, THE WIRED (March 11,
28 2022), at https://citizenag.link/we8.
63
COMPLAINT
1 313. For example, on January 17, 2020, then-candidate Biden stated, in an

2 interview with the New York Times editorial board, that Section 230 of the CDA should
3 be “revoked” because social-media companies like Facebook did not do enough to censor
4 supposedly false information in the form of political ads criticizing him—i.e., core
5 political speech. He stated: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should
6 be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other
7 platforms.” He also stated, “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet
8 company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.... There is no editorial

9 impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally
10 irresponsible.”232
11 314. These claims were specifically linked to Facebook’s alleged failure to
12 censor core political speech—i.e., political ads on Facebook criticizing candidate Biden.
13 Id.
14 315. Candidate Biden also threatened that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
15 should be subject to civil liability and even criminal prosecution for not censoring such
16 core political speech: “He should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil
17 liability…. Whether he engaged in something and amounted to collusion that in fact
18 caused harm that would in fact be equal to a criminal offense, that’s a different issue.
19 That’s possible. That’s possible it could happen.” Id. In other words, Biden’s message—
20 not long before he became President of the United States—was that if Facebook did not
21 censor political ads against him, Zuckerberg should go to prison. These two threats
22 echoed the same threats made by numerous political allies of the President since 2019,
23 cited above.
24 316. During the presidential campaign, now-Vice President Harris made similar
25 threats against social-media firms to pressure them to engage in more aggressive
26 censorship of speakers, content, and viewpoints she disfavors. For example, in addition
27
232
N.Y. Times Editorial Board, Joe Biden (Jan. 17, 2020), at. Kamala Harris Wants to Be Your Online
28 Censor-in-Chief, REASON.COM (May 7, 2019), at https://citizenag.link/c2n.
64
COMPLAINT
1 to the statements cited above, she stated in 2019: “We will hold social media platforms
2 responsible for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to
3 help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate—if you act
4 as a megaphone for misinformation or cyberwarfare, if you don’t police your platforms—
5 we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”233
6 317. In or around June 2020, the Biden campaign published an open letter and
7 online petition (ironically, on Facebook) calling for Facebook to engage in more
8 aggressive censorship of core political speech and viewpoints that then-Candidate Biden
9 disfavored. The open letter complained that Facebook “continues to allow Donald Trump
10 to say anything — and to pay to ensure that his wild claims reach millions of voters.
11 Super PACs and other dark money groups are following his example. Trump and his
12 allies have used Facebook to spread fear and misleading information about voting…. We
13 call for Facebook to proactively stem the tide of false information by no longer
14 amplifying untrustworthy content and promptly fact-checking election-related material
15 that goes viral. We call for Facebook to stop allowing politicians to hide behind paid
16 misinformation in the hope that the truth will catch up only after Election Day. There
17 should be a two-week pre-election period during which all political advertisements must
18 be fact-checked before they are permitted to run on Facebook. … Anything less will
19 render Facebook a tool of misinformation that corrodes our democracy.”234
20 318. The online petition demanded that Facebook “[p]romote real news, not
21 fake news,” “[q]uickly remove viral misinformation,” and “[e]nforce voter suppression
22 rules against everyone—even the President [Trump].” The petition complained that
23 Facebook “continues to amplify misinformation and lets candidates pay to target and
24 confuse voters with lies.” It demanded that Facebook “promote authoritative and
25 trustworthy sources of election information, rather than rants of bad actors and
26 conspiracy theorists,” “promptly remove false, viral information,” and “prevent political
27
233
Id.
28 234
Biden-Harris, Open Letter to Meta (May 5, 2022), https://joebiden.com/2961-2/.
65
COMPLAINT
1 candidates and PACs from using paid advertising to spread lies and misinformation –
2 especially within two weeks of election day.”235
3 319. On September 28, 2020, the Biden-Harris campaign sent a letter to
4 Facebook accusing it of propagating a “storm of disinformation” by failing to censor the
5 Trump campaign’s political speech, including social-media political ads.236
6 320. The letter accused Facebook of allowing “hyper-partisan” and
7 “fantastical” speech to reach millions of people, and it demanded “more aggressive”
8 censorship of Trump. Id.

9 321. A federal lawsuit filed in 2021 alleged that “before and after the
10 November, 2020 election,” California government officials “contracted with partisan
11 Biden campaign operatives to police speech online. The secretary of state of California
12 then sent these flagged posts made to inter alia Meta’s Instagram for their removal.237
13 322. Once in power, Biden and those acting in concert with him would continue
14 this same course of conduct of “flagging” content for censorship by private social-media
15 firms, now using the authority of the federal government to “flag” specific speech and
16 speakers for censorship and suppression.
17 323. On December 2, 2020—during the presidential transition—Biden’s
18 former chief of staff and top technical advisor, Bruce Reed, publicly stated that “it’s long
19 past time to hold the social media companies accountable for what’s published on their
20 platforms.”238
21 324. This comment specifically referred to the amendment or repeal of Section
22 230 of the Communications Decency Act. See id. Thus, the threat of adverse legal
23 235
Biden-Harris, #Movefastfixit (May 5, 2022), https://joebiden.com/Meta/.
236
24 Sept. 28, 2020 Biden-Harris Letter, at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7219497-Meta-
Letter-9-28.html.
25 237
Harmeet Dhillon: Biden White House 'flags' Big Tech – here's why digital policing is so dangerous,
FOX NEWS (July 16, 2021), at https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-white-house-flags-big-tech-
26
digital-policing-harmeet-dhillon.
238
27 Biden Tech Advisor: Hold Social Media Companies Accountable for What Their Users Post,
CNBC.com (Dec. 2, 2020), at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/02/biden-advisor-bruce-reed-hints-
28 that-section-230- needs-reform.html.
66
COMPLAINT
1 consequences for social-media companies that did not censor opposing political
2 viewpoints was at the forefront of the incoming Biden Administration’s public
3 messaging.
4 325. Coming into the new Administration, with now-President Biden’s political
5 allies in control of both Houses of Congress, social-media companies were on clear
6 notice that the federal 5government’s involvement in social-media censorship was likely
7 to escalate, and their threats of adverse legislation, regulation, and legal action became
8 more ominous. On information and belief, this caused a chilling effect on speech by
9 prompting social-media companies to ramp up their own censorship programs against
10 disfavored speech and speakers, to preempt the risk of adverse action against them by
11 the Government.
12 326. Once in control of the Executive Branch, Defendants promptly capitalized
13 on these threats by pressuring, cajoling, and openly colluding with social-media
14 companies to actively suppress particular disfavored speakers and viewpoints on social
15 media.
16 327. Defendants, those acting in concert with them, and those allied with them
17 routinely seek to justify overt censorship of disfavored speakers and viewpoints by
18 wrapping it in the monikers “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and/or
19 “malinformation.” Their standard tactic is to label speech that contradicts their preferred
20 political narratives “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” to justify
21 suppressing it. Other common buzzwords include calls for a “healthy information
22 ecosystem,” “healthy information environment,” or “healthy news environment,” among

23 others. This is the Orwellian vocabulary of censorship. It is deployed aggressively to
24 undermine fundamental First Amendment rights.
25 328. As noted above, these labels have proven extremely unreliable.
26 Defendants’ and the political Left’s ability to accurately identify “misinformation” and
27 “disinformation” is unreliable because they apply such labels, not based on actual truth
28
67
COMPLAINT
1 or falsity, but based on their current preferred political narrative. This has resulted, again
2 and again, in the suppression of truthful information under the name of “disinformation”
3 and “misinformation.”
4 329. White House and HHS officials collude with social-media firms to
5 suppress speech.
6 330. Before the Biden Administration took office, on information and belief,
7 coordination and collusion between senior HHS officials and social-media companies to
8 censor viewpoints and speakers was already underway. Once in office, senior officials
9 in the Biden Administration—in the White House, in HHS, and elsewhere—capitalized
10 and greatly expanded on these efforts.
11 331. On information and belief, beginning on or around January or February
12 2020, if not before, Defendant Dr. Anthony Fauci, a senior federal government official,
13 coordinated with social-media firms to police and suppress speech regarding COVID-19
14 on social media.
15 332. Prior to 2020, as head of NIAID, Dr. Fauci had overseen funding of risky
16 gain-of- function research on viruses, including research at the Wuhan Institute of
17 Virology. This included research funded through intermediaries such as Dr. Peter Daszak
18 and the EcoHealth Alliance, among others.
19 333. In late January and early February 2020, Dr. Fauci received information
20 from colleagues that suggested that the COVID-19 virus may have originated in a
21 laboratory in Wuhan, China. This revelation threatened to implicate Dr. Fauci in the
22 virus’s origins, as he had funded the risky research that, under this theory, led to the
23 virus’s origin. Soon thereafter, Dr. Fauci participated in a conference call with scientists
24 and science-funding authorities intended to discredit and suppress this lab-leak theory.
25 After the conference call, influential individuals signed public statements that were
26 placed in science journals in attempt to discredit the lab-leak theory.
27
28
68
COMPLAINT
1 334. In the same time frame, Dr. Fauci communicated with Facebook CEO
2 Mark Zuckerberg directly regarding public messaging and the flow of information on
3 social media about the government’s COVID-19 response. For example, in a series of
4 emails produced in response to FOIA requests dated from March 15 to 17, 2020,
5 Zuckerberg invited Fauci to make public statements to be posted for viewing by all
6 Facebook users regarding COVID-19, and also made another proposal that is redacted in
7 FOIA-produced versions but was treated as a high priority by Fauci and NIH staff.
8 335. In an email on March 15, 2020, Zuckerberg proposed coordinating with

9 Fauci on COVID-19 messaging to “make sure people can get authoritative information
10 from reliable sources,” and suggested including a video message from Fauci because
11 “people trust and want to hear from experts.” Zuckerberg proposed including this content
12 in a “hub” that “we’re going to put at the top of Facebook” to reach “200+ million
13 Americans, 2.5 billion people worldwide.”
14 336. In the same email, Zuckerberg made a three-line proposal to Fauci that
15 was redacted by the federal government before the email was produced in a FOIA
16 request.
17 337. The next day, NIH’s communications director emailed Fauci and strongly
18 recommended that he do the videos for Facebook. Regarding the redacted proposal from
19 Zuckerberg, she stated: “But an even bigger deal is his offer [REDACTED]. The sooner
20 we get that offer up the food-chain the better.” She also stated that her staff was “standing
21 by to discuss this with HHS and WH comms,” and requested authority to “determine
22 who the best point of contact would be so the Administration can take advantage of this
23 officer, soonest.” Fauci responded that “I will write or call Mark and tell him that I am
24 interested in doing this. I will then tell him that you will get for him the name of the USG
25 [on information and belief, shorthand for “U.S. Government”] point of contact.”
26
27
28
69
COMPLAINT
1 338. Fauci responded by email to Zuckerberg on March 17, 2020, agreeing to

2 the collaboration that Zuckerberg proposed and describing his redacted proposal as “very
3 exciting.”
4 339. As alleged above, around the same time frame as the Zuckerberg-Fauci
5 emails, Facebook and other social-media companies censored and suppressed speakers
6 and speech advocating for the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origins, despite the
7 overwhelming circumstantial evidence favoring that theory. This censorship directly
8 implemented the plan, orchestrated by Fauci and others in early 2020, to discredit and
9 suppress the lab-leak theory.
10 340. In the same timeframe, Facebook and other social-media companies began
11 an ever- increasing campaign of monitoring, censorship, and suppression of speech and
12 speakers about COVID-19 and issues related to COVID-19. This campaign would
13 dramatically escalate with the advent of the Biden Administration.
14 341. On information and belief, those firms coordinated directly with Fauci,
15 CDC, and other government officials regarding censorship and suppression of disfavored
16 speech and speakers.
17 342. For example, Facebook’s “COVID and Vaccine Policy” states that
18 Facebook “does not allow false claims about the vaccines or vaccination programs which
19 public health experts have advised us could lead to COVID-19 vaccine rejection.”239
20 343. On information and belief, Fauci and CDC officials are included among
21 those “public health experts” who “advise[]” Facebook on what to censor. Facebook also
22 censors COVID-19 information as “false,” not based on actual truth or falsity, but based
23 on whether the claim contradicts or challenges the pronouncements of Fauci and the
24 CDC. Id. This includes strongly supported claims such as “[c]laims that wearing a face
25 mask properly does not help prevent the spread of COVID-19,” along with an elaborate
26 list of additional disfavored content and viewpoints subject to censorship. Id.
27
239
Meta, COVID-19 and Vaccine Policy Updates & Protections, https://citizenag.link/ect (emphasis
28 added).
70
COMPLAINT
1 344. Such collusion between HHS officials and social-media companies on the
2 censorship of disfavored speakers and speech accelerated once the Biden Administration
3 took office.
4 345. On May 5, 2021, Defendant Psaki gave a White House press conference
5 at which she stated that “[t]he President’s view is that the major platforms have a
6 responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying
7 untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to
8 COVID-19, vaccinations, and elections. And we’ve seen that over the past several
9 months, broadly speaking…. we’ve seen it from a number of sources.”240
10 346. Echoing Biden’s past threats to social-media firms, Psaki immediately
11 went on to state that President Biden “supports better privacy protections and a robust
12 anti-trust program.” Id. (emphasis added). She linked the threat of anti-trust enforcement
13 to the demand for more aggressive censorship by social-media platforms, stating that the
14 President’s “view is that there’s more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of
15 misinformation; disinformation; damaging, sometimes life-threatening information is
16 not going out to the American public.” Id.
17 347. At a White House press briefing with Psaki on July 15, 2021, Surgeon
18 General Vivek Murthy announced that “health misinformation” constitutes an “urgent
19 public health threat,” stating that he had “issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory on the
20 dangers of health misinformation. Surgeon General Advisories are reserved for urgent
21 public health threats. And while those threats have often been related to what we eat,
22 drink, and smoke, today we live in a world where misinformation poses an imminent and
23 insidious threat to our nation’s health.”241 Surgeon General Murthy stated that “[m]odern
24 technology companies have enabled misinformation to poison our information
25 environment with little accountability to their users. They’ve allowed people who
26 240
White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Secretary of Agriculture Tom
27 Vilsack, May 5, 2021, at https://citizenag.link/4vn.
241
The White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H.
28 Murthy, July 15, 2021, at https://citizenag.link/qks.
71
COMPLAINT
1 intentionally spread misinformation — what we call ‘disinformation’ to have

2 extraordinary reach.” Id.
3 348. He accused their algorithms of “pulling us deeper and deeper into a well
4 of misinformation.” Id.
5 349. Surgeon General Murthy explicitly called for more aggressive censorship
6 of social- media speech, stating that “we’re saying we expect more from our technology
7 companies. …. We’re asking them to monitor misinformation more closely.
8 350. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation

9 super-spreaders on their platforms.” Id.
10 351. He also stated that “technology companies have a particularly important
11 role” to play in combating “misinformation.” He stated: “We know that the dramatic
12 increase in the speed and scale of spreading misinformation has, in part, been enabled by
13 these platforms. So that’s why in this advisory today, we are asking them to step up. We
14 know they have taken some steps to address misinformation, but much, much more has
15 to be done. And we can’t wait longer for them to take aggressive action because it’s
16 costing people their lives.” Id.
17 352. He also stated: “we are asking technology companies to help lift up the
18 voices of credible health authorities…. [T]hey have to do more to reduce the
19 misinformation that’s out there so that the true voices of experts can shine through.” Id.
20 353. At the same press briefing, after the Surgeon General spoke, Defendant
21 Psaki stated: “[W]e are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those
22 engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of
23 our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of
24 misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.” Id. (emphasis added). She added, “We’re
25 flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Id. (emphasis
26 added). She stated, “we have recommended—proposed that they create a robust
27 enforcement strategy,” i.e., a more aggressive censorship program. Id.

28
72
COMPLAINT
1 354. Psaki called on social-media companies to censor particular disfavored

2 speakers, stating: “[T]here’s about 12 people who are producing 65 percent of anti-
3 vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. All of them remain active on
4 Facebook, despite some even being banned on other platforms, including Facebook —
5 ones that Facebook owns.” Id. And she called on Facebook and other social-media
6 companies to censor disfavored content and disfavored viewpoints: “[I]t’s important to
7 take faster action against harmful posts. As you all know, information travels quite
8 quickly on social media platforms; sometimes it’s not accurate. And Facebook needs to
9 move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts — posts that will be within their
10 policies for removal often remain up for days. That’s too long. The information spreads
11 too quickly.” Id.
12 355. She stated that “[w]e engage with them [i.e., social-media companies]
13 regularly and they certainly understand what our asks are.” Id. (emphasis added). She
14 stated that, “we’ve made a calculation to push back on misinformation,” and that “we are
15 working to combat misinformation that’s traveling online.” Id.
16 356. The same day, the Surgeon General released his advisory regarding
17 “health misinformation.” It defined “health misinformation” as “information that is false,
18 inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time.
19 Misinformation has caused confusion and led people to decline COVID-19 vaccines,
20 reject public health measures such as masking and physical distancing, and use unproven
21 treatments.”242
22 357. The Surgeon General’s advisory called for social-medial companies to

23 “make meaningful long-term investments to address misinformation, including product
24 changes,” to “[r]edesign recommendation algorithms to avoid amplifying
25 misinformation,” to “build in ‘frictions’— such as suggestions and warnings—to reduce
26 the sharing of misinformation,” and to “make it easier for users to report
27
242
Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy
28 Information Environment, at 4 (July 15, 2021), at https://citizenag.link/0jb.
73
COMPLAINT
1 misinformation.” Id. at 12. It called on social-media companies to “[s]trengthen the

2 monitoring of misinformation,” and to censor disfavored speakers swiftly and
3 aggressively: “Prioritize early detection of misinformation ‘super-spreaders’ and repeat
4 offenders. Impose clear consequences for accounts that repeatedly violate platform
5 policies.” Id.
6 358. Facebook responded by stating that it was, in fact, aggressively censoring
7 “health misinformation,” and coordinating with the Government to do so. “A Facebook
8 spokesperson said the company has partnered with government experts, health
9 authorities and researchers to take ‘aggressive action against misinformation about
10 COVID-19 and vaccines to protect public health.’”243 “‘So far we’ve removed more than
11 18 million pieces of COVID misinformation, [and] removed accounts that repeatedly
12 break these rules…,’ the spokesperson added.” Id.
13 359. Facebook stated that it “has introduced rules against making certain false
14 claims about COVID-19 and its vaccines.” Id.
15 360. The next day, July 16, 2021, a reporter asked President Biden what he
16 thought of COVID misinformation on social media, and he responded, referring to
17 platforms like Facebook, by stating: “They’re killing people.”244 The New York Times
18 reported that “this week, White House officials went further and singled out social media
19 companies for allowing false information to proliferate. That came after weeks of failed
20 attempts to get Facebook to turn over information detailing what mechanisms were in
21 place to combat misinformation about the vaccine, according to a person familiar with
22 the matter.” Id.

23 361. The same day, July 16, 2021, Psaki explicitly called for social-media
24 companies to coordinate with each other in censoring disfavored speakers, to ensure that
25
26 243
White House Slams Meta as Conduit for COVID-19 Misinformation, REUTERS (July 15, 2021), at
27 https://citizenag.link/vj8. (emphasis added).
244
They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation, N.Y.
28 TIMES (July 16, 2021), at https://citizenag.link/idn.
74
COMPLAINT
1 such speakers are completely muzzled. “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and
2 not others … for providing misinformation out there.”245
3 362. On information and belief, social-media companies have heeded this
4 demand, and they do, in fact, coordinate extensively with each other in censorship of
5 disfavored speakers, speech, and viewpoints on social media.
6 363. Psaki also demanded that social-media companies “create robust
7 enforcement strategies,” “tak[e] faster action against harmful posts,” and “promot[e]
8 quality information algorithms”—which is a euphemism for algorithms that suppress

9 disfavored messages. Id. When asked whether Facebook’s already-aggressive
10 censorship—it claimed to have suppressed 18 million pieces of COVID-19-related
11 “misinformation”—was “sufficient,” she responded, “Clearly not, because we’re talking
12 about additional steps that should be taken.” Id.
13 364. Four days later, July 20, 2021, the White House explicitly threatened to
14 amend or repeal the liability protections of § 230 of the Communications Decency Act
15 if social-media companies did not increase censorship of disfavored speakers and
16 viewpoints.246
17 365. The White House communications director announced that “[t]he White
18 House is assessing whether social media platforms are legally liable for misinformation
19 spread on their platforms.” Id. “We’re reviewing that, and certainly, they should be held
20 accountable,” she said. Id.
21 366. She “specified the White House is examining how misinformation fits into
22 the liability protections granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
23 which shields online platforms from being responsible for what is posted by third parties
24 on their sites.” Id.
25
26 245
White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, July 16, 2021, at
27 https://citizenag.link/68j.
246
‘They Should Be Held Accountable’: White House Reviews Platforms’ Misinformation Liability,
28 USA TODAY (July 20, 2021), at https://citizenag.link/heb.
75
COMPLAINT
1 367. Media reported that, in connection with this threat, “Relations are tense
2 between the Biden administration and social media platforms, specifically Facebook,
3 over the spread of misinformation online.”247
4 368. When asked whether the President is “open to amending 230 when
5 Facebook and Twitter and other social media outlets spread false information that cause
6 Americans harm, shouldn’t they be held accountable in a real way?”
7 369. White House Communications Director Bedingfield responded, “We’re
8 reviewing that and certainly they should be held accountable. And I think you heard the
9 president speak very aggressively about this. He understands that this is an important
10 piece of the ecosystem.” Id.
11 370. After this series of public statements, responding to “White House
12 pressure,” Facebook censored the accounts of the 12 specific disfavored speakers whom
13 Psaki accused of spreading health misinformation.248
14 371. Psaki had “hammered the platform in July for allowing the people
15 identified in the report to remain on its platform.” Id.
16 372. After they were singled out for censorship by the White House, Facebook
17 “removed over three dozen Pages, groups and Facebook or Instagram accounts linked to
18 these 12 people, including at least one linked to each of the 12 people, for violating our
19 policies.” Id.
20 373. This public admission further confirms the findings of the House
21 Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the
22 Federal Government’s Interim Staff Report published on November 6, 2023.249

23 247
Id.; see also, e.g., White House says social media networks should be held accountable for
24 spreading misinformation, CNBC.com (July 20, 2021), at https://citizenag.link/mjd.
248
Meta takes action against ‘disinformation dozen’ after White House pressure, CNN.com (Aug. 18,
25 2021), at https://citizenag.link/nc7.
249
The Weaponization of “Disinformation” Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal
26
Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech, Comm. Judiciary
27 Sel. Subcomm. On Weaponization of the Fed. Gov’t. (Nov. 6, 2023) available at:
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-
28 document/EIP_Jira_Ticket_Staff_Report_11-6-23_Clean.pdf (last accessed August 27, 2024).
76
COMPLAINT
1 II. KAMALA’S PROMISE: CENSORSHIP WILL CONTINUE

2 374. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have become, in
3 many ways, “the modern public square.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730,
4 1737 (2017). Social media platforms provide “perhaps the most powerful mechanisms
5 available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Id.
6 375. “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented
7 amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented,
8 however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private
9 parties.” Knight First Amendment Institute, 141 S. Ct. at 1221.
10 376. The “concentration” of power in social media companies “gives some
11 digital platforms enormous control over speech.” Id. at 1224. Defendants have not
12 hesitated to exploit this power––and now, have even gone so far as to promising that if
13 private actors such as Elon Musk do not allow the federal government to exploit their
14 companies and the powerful reach organically developed as the modern-day public
15 square naturally yields, Presidential nominee Kamala Harris has made clear she will not
16 hesitate to abuse her power as President and eradicate a private entity that dare to not
17 violate the rights of Americans at her bequest.
18 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH – U.S. CONST. AMEND I
19
(Against All Defendants)
20
377. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs
21
as if fully set forth herein.
22
378. Political speech is a core First Amendment speech and critical to the
23
functioning of our republic.
24
379. Political speech rests on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First
25
Amendment values.
26
380. The Biden Administration weaponized their offices and powers as federal
27
officials to pressure and significantly coerce Meta into censoring Plaintiff’s speech.
28
77
COMPLAINT
1 381. State action the compels a private entity such as Meta to take action
2 intended to chill speech and/or expression violates and infringes upon the free speech
3 protections the First Amendment guarantees Plaintiff.
4 382. Meta removed Plaintiff’s speech as evidenced in the screenshots from
5 Plaintiff’s Meta account depicted above.
6 383. By removing the aforesaid speech, Meta censored Plaintiff’s speech.250
7 384. By censoring Plaintiff’s speech, Meta directly abridged Plaintiff’s
8 protected free speech rights in violation of the First Amendment.
9 385. Censoring Plaintiff’s speech infringes upon the First Amendment Free
10 Speech right to which Plaintiff is guaranteed, and this is evidenced by the plain text of
11 the First Amendment’s right to free speech.
12 386. Plaintiff’s speech does not fall into any category of unprotected speech or
13 otherwise outside the confines of the First Amendment right to Free Speech.
14 387. There is no dispute that Meta was compelled to censor Plaintiff’s speech,
15 as Mark Zuckerberg has already admitted the Biden Administration engaged in a
16 “monthslong” coercive and pressure-fueled campaign to silence anyone who used Meta
17 and expressed speech contrary to the speech the Biden Administration deemed
18 acceptable or desired, especially speech concerning anything related to the COVID-19
19 pandemic or the Administration’s handling of the pandemic.
20 388. Plaintiff’s post, while not directly related to the pandemic itself, criticized
21 the unconstitutional actions of the Biden Administration, and this speech was well-within
22 Plaintiff’s right to do so.

23 389. Plaintiff also expressed his opinion as to his views of President Biden,
24 which likewise, was protected speech and within his right to express.
25 390. The Biden Administration coerced and pressured Meta for months to
26 silence critics of the Biden Administration such as Plaintiff, as evidenced by:
27
28 250
Id.
78
COMPLAINT
1 a. Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024 letter to Congressman Jim

Jordan admitting that the Biden Administration “repeatedly
2 pressured [Meta] for months to censor” COVID-19 content;
3
b. Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024 letter to Congressman Jim
4 Jordan admitting that Meta’s censorship of Americans, “including
[the] COVID-19-related changes [Meta] made to [its] enforcement
5
in the wake of this pressure, was directly and proximately caused by
6 the Biden Administration’s pressure;
7 c. Emails from Meta employees emphasizing that the Biden
8 Administration expressed “clear frustration” when Meta didn’t
provide data or evidence of its censorship pursuant to the Biden
9 Administration’s demands;
10
d. March 2, 2021 emails from a Meta employee confirming that Senior
11 White House leadership was “running out of patience with [Meta]
on this subject [of censorship], and it may cost us an opportunity to
12
work with them constructively.”
13
e. Andy Slavitt’s March 15, 2021 email stating that “Internally we
14 have been considering our options on what to do about it” in
15 response to Meta not satisfying the White House’s demands to
censor more content;
16
f. Meta’s efforts to avoid discussions about censorship in its meetings
17
with the Biden Administration and the Biden Administration’s
18 continued efforts to redirect its attention squarely at censoring anti-
vaccine content;
19
20 g. Flaherty’s email complaining about Meta giving people warnings
because Flaherty wants Meta to instead just “kick people off”
21 because “targeting people engaged in antivax content” is likely the
22 “path of most impact.”
23 h. Flaherty suggesting Meta should punish the New York Post because
24
it published articles about people dying––which was true, but
damaging to the Biden Administration’s agenda;
25
i. Flaherty’s inquiry into whether Meta was censoring on WhatsApp;
26
27
28
79
COMPLAINT
1 j. Meta’s forced capitulation after being coerced into “design[ing]

further product features that limit virality” despite its understanding
2 that vaccine hesitancy and misinformation are not one in the same;
3
k. Flaherty’s repeated, incessant emails about “commitments” and
4 “assurances” that Meta will do as its told and censor anti-vaccine
content, even going to the point of specifically pointing out specific
5
manufacturers/brands of the vaccines;
6
l. Insisting that Tucker Carlson’s posts be censored or deleted;
7
m. Pressuring Meta to change its algorithm to specifically target
8
accounts belonging to news outlet the Daily Wire and individuals
9 like Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren;
10 n. Gaslighting Meta by claiming it was nothing more than a
11 “disinformation factory” simply because it would not censor every
single thing Flaherty demanded it censor; and
12
o. Demanding that Meta even remove a meme depicting Leonardo
13
DiCaprio that is clearly satire simply because it did not fit the pro-
14 vaccine narrative.
15
391. Perhaps most egregious of all is the Biden Administration’s response to
16
Meta’s warning that its demands to censor information simply because it did not align
17
with policy preferences.
18
392. On April 18, 2021, Clegg sent an email to other Meta top executives to
19
inform them that he advised the Biden Administration that censoring and suppressing
20
memes “would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free
21
expression in the US” –– which the Biden Administration abjectly ignored and
22
instead, expressed “outrage[ ]” that Meta did not take down the meme.
23
393. Plaintiff’s September 9, 2021 post did not violate any of Meta’s policies,
24
nor was it even remotely “anti-vaccine”––however, Meta removed the post as a direct
25
and proximate result of the Biden Administration’s demand that it do so and in response
26
to the gaining traction it garnered in the days leading up to Plaintiff formally filing a
27
federal lawsuit against the Administration.
28
80
COMPLAINT
1 394. But-for the Biden Administration’s direction, significant coercion, and

2 pressure, Meta would not have removed Plaintiff’s September 9, 2021 post.
3 395. The significant amount of coercion the Biden Administration leveraged
4 over Meta rises to the requisite level of significant because the Biden Administration
5 conveyed threats of adverse governmental action against Meta or otherwise essentially
6 compelled Meta to comply with its requests and demands.
7 396. The Biden Administration threatened Meta on numerous occasions, and
8 the Biden Administration has a history of threatening persons and entities who do not
9 capitulate to its demands, as explained above.
10 397. The Biden Administration essentially compelled Meta to comply with its
11 requests and demands as evidenced by the inconsistency between Zuckerberg’s views
12 and the views Meta adopted “in the wake of [the Biden Administration’s] pressure.”251
13 398. Specifically, Mark Zuckerberg advised numerous Meta employees that
14 they should not get vaccinated, while at the same time, Meta was stripping, blocking,
15 deleting, or removing any posts and/or accounts that shared anything even removely
16 close to Zuckerberg’s statements to his employees.
17 399. In other words, Mark Zuckerberg is against receiving the COVID-19
18 vaccine, yet nevertheless, Meta’s policies run in direct conflict with Zuckerberg’s own
19 statements.
20 400. This inconsistency is, at a minimum, indicative that the policies Meta
21 enforced were not those Meta chose; they were policies demanded by the Biden
22 Administration and the product that manifested as a direct and proximate result of the
23 Biden Administration’s pressure, threats, and significant coercion that essentially
24 compelled Meta to act according to its demands.
25 401. As a direct and proximate result of this pressure and significant coercion,
26 Meta changed its COVID-19-related policies and that the change aligned with the
27
251
Mark Zuckerberg, Letter to Congressman Jim Jordan (Aug. 26, 2024).
28
81
COMPLAINT
1 pressure and significant coercion applied by the Biden Administration upon Meta
2 concerning the demand that Meta change, add, modify, or revise its policies and the
3 manner in which any of its policies were enforced.
4 402. As a direct and proximate result of the policy changes, additions, and
5 means of enforcement, Plaintiff’s speech was censored by way of removal, and the
6 removal of Plaintiff’s speech constitutes an infringement of his free speech rights.
7 403. Absent the coercive efforts that essentially compelled Meta to remove
8 Plaintiff’s speech, Plaintiff’s post would not have been removed.
9 404. There are only two options: Meta’s actions complained of herein regarding
10 its COVID-19-related polices and the enforcement of these policies were actions taken
11 by way of significant coercion (e.g., unwillingly), or the actions were taken willingly.
12 And to the extent that Meta was not pressured, significantly coerced, or essentially
13 compelled by the Biden Administration to take the actions complained of herein, Meta
14 therefore must have taken the complained of actions willingly.
15 405. In doing so, however, and even despite the willingness with which it took
16 the complained of actions, Meta only did so because it acted in joint concert with the
17 federal government and therefore, Meta is still subject to the constitutional constraints
18 of the United States Constitution.
19 406. This is because even acting in joint concert with the Biden Administration
20 triggers constitutional constraints under the state action doctrine.
21 407. Specifically, Meta’s joint concerted action with the Biden Administration
22 to abridge Plaintiff’s speech and deprive him of his First Amendment rights, is
23 evidenced by: (1) the changes it made to its COVID-19-related policies; (2) the addition
24 of new COVID-19-related policies; and (3) the alteration of the manner in which it
25 enforced its unaltered and already-existent COVID-19-related policies (collectively,
26 Meta’s complained of “actions”) to ensure its policies and enforcement thereof were in
27 strict compliance and direct alignment with the objectives and desires of the Biden
28
82
COMPLAINT
1 Administration regarding the suppression and/or chilling of speech, including

2 Plaintiff’s speech.
3 408. Even though Meta willingly took the aforesaid actions willingly, these
4 actions are so inextricably entwined with the Biden Administration’s communications,
5 directives, and voluminous conversations regarding its censorship and suppression of
6 COVID-19-related speech that the Biden Administration is ultimately responsible for
7 the actions Meta took, even if they were taken willfully.
8 409. And, even absent state compulsion and without acting in joint concert, the
9 nature of the relationship between Meta and the Biden Administration gives rise to, at
10 a minimum, a finding that Meta’s actions are “fairly attributable to the [Biden
11 Administration].”
12 410. In other words, Meta’s actions are “fairly attributable” to the Biden
13 Administration if there is at least an inference that the Biden Administration is
14 responsible for the actions Meta took that resulted in the infringement upon Plaintiff’s
15 speech.
16 411. Meta’s actions complained of herein are attributable to the Biden
17 Administration because Meta would not have instituted these policy and enforcement-
18 related changes directly designed and intended to infringe upon the speech of American
19 citizens such as Plaintiff absent the Biden Administration’s pressure, significant
20 coercion, direction, demand, or orders.
21 412. The Biden Administration pressured, coerced, or otherwise directed Meta
22 to abide by its incessant and threatening demands to censoring any speech the
23 Administration deemed contrary to its agenda or chosen narrative and without regard
24 for the Free Speech rights of Americans.
25 413. These changes were made directly and proximately because of
26 communications Meta received from the Biden Administration, including inter alia the
27 meetings, calls, emails, and text messages identified and explained in-depth above.
28
83
COMPLAINT
1 414. Meta made the aforesaid changes willingly, as evidenced by Mark

2 Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024 statement acknowledging that ultimately, it was Meta’s
3 decision to do so.
4 415. Meta added new COVID-19-related policies and altered the manner in
5 which it enforced its COVID-19 related policies as a direct and proximate result of the
6 coercion, concerted action, or because the Biden Administration was so inextricably
7 entwined with Meta that ultimately, the Biden Administration was the entity
8 responsible for silencing and suppressing Plaintiff’s protected speech.
9 416. The addition of these new policies was the direct and proximate result of
10 communications Meta received from the Biden Administration.
11 417. Meta added the aforesaid policies willingly, as evidenced by Mark
12 Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024 statement acknowledging that ultimately, it was Meta’s
13 decision to do so.
14 418. Meta altered the manner in which it enforced its own COVID-19-related
15 policies, as evidenced by the express acknowledgement and concession that Meta’s
16 enforcement policies changed “in the wake of [the Biden Administration’s]
17 pressure.”252
18 419. Censoring Plaintiff’s speech constitutes a deprivation of his Free speech
19 rights.
20 420. Censoring Plaintiff’s speech by removing his post infringes upon his First
21 Amendment Rights.
22 421. Censoring Plaintiff’s speech by removing his post deprives Plaintiff of his
23 protected free speech rights.
24 422. To the extent Meta did not act willfully, or to the extent that Meta did
25 otherwise did not act in joint concert with the Biden Administration in taking the
26
27
28 252
Mark Zuckerberg, Letter to Congressman Jim Jordan (Aug. 26, 2024).
84
COMPLAINT
1 aforesaid actions complained of herein, Meta’s actions are, at a minimum, attributable

2 to the Biden Administration.
3 423. To show Meta’s actions are “fairly attributable” to the Biden
4 Administration, Plaintiff need only prove that the Biden Administration is responsible
5 for the actions taken by Meta that resulted in the abridgement of Plaintiff’s speech.
6 424. The Biden Administration is responsible for Meta’s actions complained of
7 herein.
8 425. Meta admits that it made these changes and otherwise succumbed to the
9 pressure and acted in a manner it otherwise would not have taken the actions
10 complained of herein that resulted in the abridgement and infringement upon Plaintiff’s
11 First Amendment Free Speech rights.
12 426. The removal of Plaintiff’s speech infringes upon his Free Speech rights.
13 427. The censorship of Plaintiff’s speech infringes upon his Free Speech rights.
14 428. By removing Plaintiff’s subject post, the Biden Administration infringed
15 upon Plaintiff’s Free Speech rights.
16 429. By censoring Plaintiff’s subject post, the Biden Administration infringed
17 upon Plaintiff’s Free Speech rights.
18 430. Removing Plaintiff’s post constitutes censorship of speech.
19 431. As a direct and proximate result of Meta’s complained of actions,
20 Plaintiff’s speech was censored, and such censorship constitutes an infringement upon
21 Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to Free Speech.
22 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
ACTION IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY
23
(Against Harris and Flaherty)
24
432. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs
25
as if fully set forth herein.
26
433. All foregoing Paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth fully herein.
27
28
85
COMPLAINT
1 434. No federal statute authorizes the Defendants’ conduct in engaging in

2 censorship, and conspiracy to censor, in violation of Plaintiff’s free-speech rights.
3 435. “An agency’s power is no greater than that delegated to it by Congress.”
4 Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 937 (1986). Agency actions that exceed the agency’s
5 statutory authority are ultra vires and must be invalidated.
6 436. No statute authorizes either Defendant Harris or Flaherty––or any other
7 federal official––to engage in the course of conduct regarding the censorship and
8 suppression of speech on social media as alleged herein.

9 437. No statute authorizes either Defendant Harris or Flaherty––or any other
10 federal official––to identify what constitutes “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and/or
11 “malinformation” in public discourse on social-media platforms; to direct, pressure,
12 coerce, and encourage social-media companies to censor and suppress such speech;
13 and/or to demand that private companies turn over information about speech and
14 speakers on their platforms in the interest of investigating “misinformation,”
15 “disinformation,” and/or “malinformation.”
16 438. Further, the interpretation of any statute to authorize these actions would
17 violate the non-delegation doctrine, the canon of constitutional avoidance, the major-
18 questions doctrine, the Supreme Court’s clear-statement rules, and other applicable
19 principles of interpretation. No statute may be properly construed to do so.
20 439. Defendants and the federal officials acting in concert with them, by
21 adopting the censorship policies and conduct identified herein, have acted and are acting
22 without any lawful authority whatsoever, and without any colorable basis for the exercise
23 of authority. No federal statute, regulation, constitutional provision, or other legal
24 authority authorizes their social-media- censorship program, and it is wholly ultra vires.
25 440. Defendants’ ultra vires actions inflict ongoing irreparable harm on
26 Plaintiff, as Vice President Harris has vowed to continue censoring Americans both in
27 her current capacity as a federal official and Vice President of the United States, and she
28
86
COMPLAINT
1 has further vowed that she remains dedicated to the suppression and abridgement of
2 American’s fundamental liberties should she become the 47th President of the United
3 States.
4 441. Such action must be prohibited, and permanently enjoined.
5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter
7 judgment in his favor and award such relief as to make Plaintiff whole and remedy the
8 aforesaid deprivation of his fundamental First Amendment rights, and in doing so,
9 award all legal and equitable relief provided by law, including but not limited to:
10 (a) A declaratory judgment that holds the state action doctrine applies to
11 actions taken by a private actor that chill or otherwise censor protected speech when
12 such actions would not have been taken absent significant coercion by federal officials;
13 (b) A declaratory judgment that holds the state action doctrine applies to
14 actions taken by a private actor that chill or otherwise censor protected speech when
15 such actions were taken as part of a joint concerted action between the private entity
16 and federal officials;
17 (c) A declaratory judgment that holds the state action doctrine applies to
18 actions taken by a private actor that chill or otherwise censor protected speech are fairly
19 attributable to federal officials;
20 (d) A declaratory judgment that holds social media platforms are not entitled
21 to protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act when the actions
22 taken give rise to liability under the state action doctrine;
23 (e) A declaratory judgment that holds constitutional constraints attached to
24 Meta who at all times relevant to this action, was a state actor as defined by the state
25 action doctrine;
26 (f) A declaratory judgment that holds Meta violated Plaintiff’s First
27 Amendment right to Free Speech;
28
87
COMPLAINT
1 (g) A declaratory judgment that holds the Biden Administration violated

2 Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to Free Speech;
3 (h) Award Plaintiff nominal damages, all appropriate and legally available
4 monetary relief for the irreparable harm suffered;
5 (i) Award Plaintiff any interest at the legal rate on such damages as
6 appropriate, including pre- and post-judgment interest;
7 (j) Award Plaintiff all costs, disbursements, and expenses he paid or that he
8 incurred on his own behalf;
9 (k) Award any such additional relief the Court deems just and proper; and
10 (l) Award any other relief as allowed by law.
11
12 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

13 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
14
15 Dated: September 1, 2024

16
17 Respectfully submitted,
MIKE YODER
18
19 By: /s/ Mike Yoder

Mike Yoder
20 Email: filings@citizenag.org
21 CITIZEN AG
5601 Palmer Way, Ste D
22 Carlsbad, CA 92010
23 Telephone: (442) 427-8136
24 Pro se Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
88
COMPLAINT

Yoder v. Zuckerberg, 3:24-cv-6200 - Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yoder v. Zuckerberg, 3:24-cv-6200 - Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yoder v. Zuckerberg, 3:24-cv-6200 - Filed Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:24-cv-06200 Document 1 Filed 09/01/24 Page 1 of 88

1 Mike Yoder, Esq. (pro se)

1 NATURE OF THE CASE

1 campaign’s deputy director, Rob Flaherty––the Biden Administration official most

4 intent of ceasing to do so, as explained in greater detail below.

5 There is no question: the constitutionally guaranteed protection against

7 millennium remains squarely in the crosshairs of extinction. Kamala Harris has

11 Harris claims to serve.

21 free speech rights in hopes of circumventing liability for doing so.

24 itself is nothing but illusory.

1 JURISDICTION & VENUE

1 6. Defendant Mark Zuckerberg is an adult resident of California and the

26 13. Plaintiff thereafter sued Biden, twice.

1 14. Inclusive of even the emotionally-charged colorful language Plaintiff used

1 COVID vaccine-related content” on Meta and would be implementing “additional

1 C: The Biden Administration Meta to Suppress Opinions & Begin

1 103. Another member of Clegg’s team, added, “Clearly we have a policy

1 concerned that misinformation” on Meta was “jeopardizing proactive COVID

1 I. Meta Succumbs to Insurmountable Coercion as Biden Administration

1 principled perspective,” adding that it also “would be resource intensive to

1 221. On September 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order No.

22 future disfavored speech, “shadow banning” speakers, demonetizing content, adjusting

1 “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through intermediaries

22 240. By 2021, however, “the circumstantial evidence” favoring the lab-leak

8 of our fact-checking partners.’

22 protect against COVID- 19,” among many other restrictions.210

1 251. Facebook suppressed a scientist for citing a peer-reviewed study “by a

22 adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a

1 268. The bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform—

8 suppress these ideas, viewpoints, and concerns.

22 actions to achieve this goal.

1 power of censorship, by a small group of powerful social-media firms––and in 2020-21,

22 viewpoint-based censorship by social-media platforms. See id.

27 produce the opposite effect.

22 that Defendants disfavor.

27 legislation, regulation, or agency action— especially threats of antitrust legislation

8 proactively detect and address foreign disinformation operations targeted at Spanish-

1 Mark Zuckerberg to make threats of adverse legal consequences if censorship is not

1 313. For example, on January 17, 2020, then-candidate Biden stated, in an

8 company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.... There is no editorial

8 censorship of Trump. Id.

22 ecosystem,” “healthy information environment,” or “healthy news environment,” among

8 335. In an email on March 15, 2020, Zuckerberg proposed coordinating with

1 338. Fauci responded by email to Zuckerberg on March 17, 2020, agreeing to

1 intentionally spread misinformation — what we call ‘disinformation’ to have

8 350. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation

27 enforcement strategy,” i.e., a more aggressive censorship program. Id.

1 354. Psaki called on social-media companies to censor particular disfavored

22 357. The Surgeon General’s advisory called for social-medial companies to

1 misinformation.” Id. at 12. It called on social-media companies to “[s]trengthen the

22 the matter.” Id.

8 quality information algorithms”—which is a euphemism for algorithms that suppress

22 Federal Government’s Interim Staff Report published on November 6, 2023.249

1 II. KAMALA’S PROMISE: CENSORSHIP WILL CONTINUE

22 Plaintiff’s right to do so.

1 a. Mark Zuckerberg’s August 26, 2024 letter to Congressman Jim

1 j. Meta’s forced capitulation after being coerced into “design[ing]

1 394. But-for the Biden Administration’s direction, significant coercion, and

1 Administration regarding the suppression and/or chilling of speech, including

1 414. Meta made the aforesaid changes willingly, as evidenced by Mark