2:18-cv-02573-DCN
Date Filed 02/08/19
Entry Number 17
Page 8 of 11
the plain language of the Defendant’s Terms of Service Agreement states that by using the
Defendant’s services, Plaintiff has agreed to “form a binding contract with [the Defendant]”.
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 230(c), if Plaintiff and the Defendant have entered into a
contract generating a legal duty distinct from the Defendant’s conduct as a publisher, the provisions
of such a contract may be enforceable at law and thereby support a breech of contract claim by the
Plaintiff. Cf. Barnes, 570 F.3d 1096, 1107-1108.
However, even assuming Plaintiff’s theory of liability is based on breech of contract,
he has still failed to state a claim, as the “contract” Plaintiff had with the Defendant clearly provides
that the Defendant reserves the right to remove content that it deems to have violated the User
Agreement, including content constituting unlawful conduct or harassment, as well as that the
Defendant reserves the right to suspend or even terminate a user’s account or cease providing the
user with all or part of its Services “at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to,
if we reasonably believe [that] you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules . . . .” The Twitter
Rules, which are part of the User Agreement and are therefore part of any “contract” Plaintiff had
with the Defendant, prohibit postings that are intended to or may harass, intimidate, or use fear to
silence another user’s voice, including but not limited to harassment or expressing hate towards a
person, group, or protected activity based on religious affiliation. The Twitter Rules further
specifically provide that a user’s failure to adhere to these policies may result in various enforcement
actions, including the suspension of the user’s account. See discussion, supra.
Plaintiff’s own exhibit (attached to his Complaint) targets Islam with disparaging
comments, and based on the “contract” language previously cited, Plaintiff has failed to set forth a
“plausible” claim that the Defendant requiring him to delete the flagged content in order to regain
8