Fletcher v. Facebook, Inc.
Issue
Whether Facebook operates as a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints when terminating user access, either because it constitutes a public forum or because it acted under government coercion or direction.
What Happened
Pro se plaintiff Fletcher filed a second amended complaint alleging Facebook violated his First Amendment rights by permanently suspending his account in March 2021, claiming Facebook operates as a public forum, that the suspension occurred under government coercion or direction (citing jawboning concerns and invoking Murthy v. Missouri-style theories), that Facebook should be treated as a common carrier, and that the platform's dominance among senior citizens constitutes a Sherman Act violation. Plaintiff seeks $14 million in damages and restoration of account access. The complaint invokes the public forum doctrine, Bivens claims against unknown government employees, conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), ADA violations based on hearing impairment, and cites Justice Thomas's Biden v. Knight concurrence questioning social media's common carrier status. The legal theories rest on asserting that Facebook's use of "open-source" government software and alleged government direction convert it into a state actor bound by the First Amendment.
Why It Matters
This complaint illustrates the continued assertion of public forum and state action theories against platforms post-Packingham, despite contrary controlling authority in Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck and Prager University v. Google establishing that private platforms are not state actors. The government coercion allegations invoke the framework from Murthy v. Missouri and Bantam Books, but the complaint's broad, conclusory assertions about government "coercion" and "direction" without specific factual allegations illustrate the demanding causation and traceability standards Murthy established for jawboning claims.