Riddle v. X Corp
Issue
Whether §230 of the Communications Decency Act, the First Amendment, and X Corp.'s contractual Terms of Service bar a court order compelling X Corp. to reinstate a suspended user account and cease processing third-party DMCA takedown notices during a pending appeal.
What Happened
Plaintiff-Appellant Justin Riddle, proceeding pro se, originally sued X Corp. in the Western District of Texas alleging DMCA violations, contributory copyright infringement, and various other claims arising from third-party impersonation accounts and alleged account mismanagement; the district court dismissed the case with prejudice in September 2025 after finding Riddle engaged in persistent litigation misconduct, including harassing court staff and opposing counsel. Riddle then filed an emergency motion in the Fifth Circuit seeking injunctive relief pending appeal, including account reinstatement within 24 hours and an order directing X Corp. to cease processing DMCA notices filed by a non-party. X Corp. opposed the motion on both procedural grounds—arguing Riddle failed to first seek relief in the district court as required by Fed. R. App. P. 8, failed to comply with Fifth Circuit Local Rule 27.3's certification and notice requirements, and exceeded the word limit under Fed. R. App. P. 27—and on the merits, arguing Riddle could not demonstrate likelihood of success because the alleged account suspension and third-party takedown notices occurred entirely post-dismissal and were never before the district court, and that in any event §230, the First Amendment, and X Corp.'s Terms of Service independently barred the requested relief.
Why It Matters
The opposition brief signals that §230 and the First Amendment jointly operate as a defense against court-ordered compelled reinstatement of suspended accounts, a position that, if adopted by the Fifth Circuit, would reinforce platform discretion over content moderation decisions even in the context of pending litigation; the brief also illustrates how procedural mechanisms—Rule 8 exhaustion requirements and local emergency motion rules—may serve as threshold barriers preventing appellate courts from reaching the merits of platform-liability disputes.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?