Altri rigetti di domande verso le piattaforme: non sono State Actors

Altri due precedenti che negano illecito delle piattaforme vs. l’utente.

Uno lo nega in una domanda contro Linkedin per sospensione dell’account (Perez c. Linkedin , Corte d’applelo 9 circuito 18.11.2021, D.C. No. 5:20cv07238EJD): provvedimento brevissimo, praticamente immotivato (la causa petendi era il primo emendamento)

L’altro lo nega in una domanda contro Youtube  per violazione di privacy, non avendola difesa da attacchi informatici al suo account e da conseguente harassment a se e alla famiglia (Sescey c. Youtube, Easter district od Pennsylvania, 18.11.2021, Case 2:21-cv-03311-GJP). La norma azionata era il noto paragragfo 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concedente azione per violazione di diritti costituzionali

Motivazione qui appena più significativa: <<Based on the Complaint’s allegations, it appears the named Defendants a private social media company and its legal department are not subject to liability under Section 1983. Cf. Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2020)  (affirming the dismissal of a First Amendment claim because YouTube was a private entity and not a state actor); see also Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., No. 210548, 2021 WL 1338958, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021) (“Federal courts have uniformly rejected attempts to treat similar social media companies [such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google] as state actors under Section 1983.”) (collecting cases). Sescey does not allege Defendants are state actors or that they had any connection to a state, county, or local governmental entity. Her Complaint does not allege any facts to show a “close nexus” between the private behavior of YouTube and its legal department and the state itself such that the challenged action here can fairly be treated as an action of the state. Leshko, 423 F.3d at 339. None of Sescey’s allegations support an inference that Defendants are anything other than a privatelyrun social media company and its internal legal department>>

Si noti spt. il riferimento al caso Prager University.

(notizia e link alle sentenze dal blog di Eric Goldman)

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.