Per Wikipedia, Cara Castronuova is “an American champion boxer, a professional sports announcer, political activist and celebrity fitness trainer.” This topline summary understates her #MAGA bona fides. The Wikipedia entry also notes that she “was one of the organizers of the Justice for J6 rally,” and she is now “chief White House correspondent” for Mike Lindell’s broadcast network. 🙄 Her lawsuits claims she’s also a professional real estate agent. A woman who wears many hats.
[An evergreen reminder: in November 2020, Trump 1.0 was still president. Biden didn’t become president until January 2021. There has been a lot of sometimes-convenient amnesia about the Trump/Biden/Trump timeline, but everything in 2020 happened during the Trump 1.0 era. 🌲]
Castronuova sued Facebook and Twitter for their account restrictions. Like the many dozens of failed account termination/content removal cases preceding this one, the court easily dismisses the case. The court says Section 230 applies and the First Amendment protects the services’ editorial discretion.
Section 230
Unlike in Fair Housing, here, plaintiff does not allege that Meta and X Corp. played any role in creating or developing the allegedly illegal content. Rather, all of plaintiff’s claims concern Meta and X Corp.’s decisions to remove or exclude, including by suspending or “shadow banning” plaintiff’s accounts. Plaintiff’s allegation that these decisions resulted from a larger conspiracy with the federal government does not change the nature of the underlying conduct as protected publisher activity.
In a footnote, the court adds: “Plaintiff also argues that Section 230 “does not extend to conduct constituting viewpoint discrimination or actions taken outside the bounds of good faith.” Plaintiff provides no authority—and the Court is aware of none—that identifies such blanket exceptions to Section 230 immunity.”
First Amendment
plaintiff seeks to hold Meta and X Corp. liable for “removing or suspending social media posts and accounts,” which are the exact sort of “editorial decisions” cases like NetChoice have identified as a First Amendment right
In a footnote, the court cites Doe (KB) v. Backpage for the proposition that: “An editorial decision can be both an expression of a publisher’s point of view (protected under the First Amendment) and a publication of a third-party’s content (protected under Section 230), as Meta and X Corp.’s decisions are here. That [social media platforms’] moderation decisions are also protected by the First Amendment does not strip them of their Section 230 immunity.” This is another implicit rejection of the Anderson v. TikTok ruling that pitted Section 230 and the First Amendment against each other.
Case Citation: Cara Castronuova v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 WL 1914860 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2025)
