Source: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/12/eighth-lawsuit-against-social-media-providers-for-materially-supporting-terrorists-fails-copeland-v-twitter.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:59:59+00:00

Document:
The theories of direct liability under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) asserted by Copeland are precluded by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018), affirming my order dismissing that case. Following Fields, materially similar direct liability claims have been rejected by numerous judges in this District and elsewhere. See Taamneh v. Twitter, Inc., No. 17-CV-04107-EMC, 2018 WL 5729232 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018); Cain v. Twitter Inc., No. 17-CV-02506-JD, 2018 WL 4657275 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018); Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 16-CV-03282-DMR, 2018 WL 3872781 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) (Gonzalez II); Gonzalez v. Google, Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) (Gonzalez I); Pennie v. Twitter, Inc., 281 F. Supp. 3d 874 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017); see also Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 3d 564 (E.D. Mich. March 30, 2018). The same courts have also dismissed the indirect liability (aiding and abetting) claims after specifically considered the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) amendments to the ATA. Cf. Siegel v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 17CV6593 (DLC), 2018 WL 3611967, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2018) (dismissing indirect, aiding and abetting claims against a bank who services were used by terrorists).
The allegations here are materially similar to those alleged in the cases identified above (if not weaker in terms of the alleged connections between specific terrorist acts and terrorists and defendants’ social media platforms). I will follow Fields and apply the “direct” proximate cause standard under the ATA for direct liability. Under that standard, the allegations in the FAC cannot support proximate cause as a matter of law. I also agree with and follow the analyses of the courts identified above with respect to JASTA and aiding and abetting liability–the allegations in the FAC do not support aiding and abetting liability as a matter of law. Finally, the state law tort claims fail for a similar failure to allege facts supporting proximate cause. Because Copeland’s counsel was not able to identify facts that could be asserted to get around these adverse decisions, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I’ve lost track of the number of 1-800 LAW FIRM suits on appeal, but I expect this will become another one.
Can I sue for the database post info and create my own clone site or github html repo for TorrentDNS and ZippedWebSites? I would love help with several lawsuits like suing godaddy for ripping me off after being paid for domain buy and backorder of openInvent.com which changed ownership in interim see waybackinternetarchive I own openInvent.club and vibrochat.
I need to sue USPTO for concealment of documentary evidence CA Penal Code 135 see tiny.cc/bftm and tiny.cc/bftm2 the class 35 registration is no longer listed and not listed as abandoned so I could not file a petition of revival.
And I have several lawsuits against the court justice system. See vibrochat.com and read my article.
I am looking for a co-author with legal expertise.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.