2:18-cv-02573-DCN Date Filed 02/08/19 Entry Number 17 Page 4 of 11 in the Defendant’s User Agreement.3 The Terms of Service agreement in effect at the time of the suspension of Plaintiff’s Twitter account specifically provides that it governs user’s access to and use of the Defendant’s services, and that users (such as the Plaintiff) “may use these Services only if you agree to form a binding contract with [the Defendant] . . . .”. This document further provides that “[a]ll Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content. We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including, for example . . . unlawful conduct, or harassment”. This document further provides that users may use these Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable laws, rules and regulations, and that the Defendant “may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim user names without liability to users”. The Agreement also provides that the Defendant “may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the 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 . . . .”. Finally, the Agreement also contains a Limitation of Liability provision which provides that to the maximum extent permitted 3 As Plaintiff’s Complaint references and relies on the Defendant’s Terms of Service Agreement and Hate Speech policy, this Court may properly consider these documents without converting the Defendant’s motion to a motion for summary judgment. Epstein v. World Acceptance Corp., 203 F.Supp. 3d 655, 662 (D.S.C. 2016) [The court may consider any documents referenced in the complaint and matters of which the court may take judicial notice in deciding a motion to dismiss]; cf. E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011); Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007) [Court may consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference”]; Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) [In deciding a motion to dismiss, court may consider documents that are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint and/or where the authenticity of such documents is not disputed]. 4