Riddle v. X Corp
Issue
Whether a platform's simultaneous invocation of Section 230 immunity (asserting it is "not the speaker") and First Amendment editorial-discretion protection (asserting its content-moderation decisions constitute protected expressive choices) for identical conduct are mutually exclusive defenses that, when combined, negate the "good faith" requirement of § 230(c)(2).
What Happened
Pro se appellant Justin Riddle brought claims in the Western District of Texas against X Corp. arising from an alleged 800-day impersonation campaign, repeated unsuccessful DMCA takedown notices, and alleged advertising fraud, along with ADA and copyright claims. The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice on October 27, 2025, citing, among other grounds, the appellant's "tone," declaring pending spoliation motions moot because the alleged evidence destruction had already occurred, and declining to address several emergency motions that had been pending for months. Riddle appeals, seeking reversal on seven grounds: that § 230 immunity and First Amendment editorial-discretion protection are logically mutually exclusive; that the spoliation-mootness ruling renders FRCP 37(e) unenforceable; that the district court created a logical impossibility by sustaining a contributory-infringement claim while dismissing the predicate direct-infringement claim; that the "passive conduit" defense is negated by X Corp.'s demonstrated capacity to remove access instantly; that X Corp.'s sworn answer asserting ignorance of its own systems contradicts its motion-to-dismiss briefing in violation of Rule 11 and judicial estoppel; and that the district court violated the ADA by ignoring accommodation requests and then penalizing the appellant's disability-related responses.
Why It Matters
The brief squarely presents — as an opening brief, without a ruling on the merits — the unresolved question of whether a platform may simultaneously claim § 230's "not-the-speaker" immunity and First Amendment editorial-discretion protection for the same content-moderation act, a tension left open after *Moody v. NetChoice*; a Fifth Circuit ruling on that question would create binding precedent directly governing how platforms plead immunity in content-moderation litigation across the circuit.
Related Filings
Other proceedings in the same litigation tracked by this monitor.
How accurate was this summary?