Last week, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued its decision in X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) (pdf). An amicus brief authored by the Cyberlaw Clinic students and staff on behalf of the Public Participation Project was cited throughout the opinion and ultimately influenced the court’s decision to grant CCDH’s motion to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
In this case, X. Corp. (formerly Twitter) sued CCDH, alleging that CCDH engaged in unlawful acts designed to gain access to protected data. X Corp. claimed that CCDH then later used this data to support claims that the X platform contained significant amounts of harmful content. X Corp. argued that this alleged activity by CCDH cost them millions of dollars. In response, CCDH moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
The Cyberlaw Clinic submitted an amicus brief last November on behalf of the Public Participation Project in support of CCDH (pdf). The brief argued that X Corp.’s state law claims against CCDH satisfied the prima facie requirements of California’s anti-SLAPP statute and that failure to apply such a statute to protect CCDH would allow companies like X Corp. to silence and intimidate critics. The Clinic explained that CCDH was engaging in a protected activity that was made in connection with an issue of public interest, thus satisfying the anti-SLAPP statute, and that X Corp.’s legal theories posed grave threats to the First Amendment.
On March 25, 2024, Judge Breyer granted CCDH’s anti-SLAPP motion and entered judgement in favor of CCDH. The court found that CCDH’s activity, namely newsgathering and writing on X Corp., was in furtherance of CCDH’s First Amendment free speech rights, constituted protected conduct, and was in connection with several public issues, such as vaccines, reproductive healthcare, and climate change.
The Cyberlaw Clinic brief was cited on several occasions as support for the court’s decision. More specifically, the Clinic was cited as support for the court’s conclusion that CCDH’s actions involved protected conduct and were indeed connected to public issues. Additionally, information contained in the Clinic’s brief was cited to support the argument that X Corp. was “seeking punishing damages based on reputational harm.” The brief was also cited as support for the court’s finding that X. Corp, not CCDH, was the party responsible for censoring viewpoints it did not agree with and had dilatory motives for this litigation. The court also engaged with Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista, case law that was referenced and analyzed in the Clinic’s amicus brief, in arriving at its conclusion.
The Cyberlaw Clinic is honored to have represented amici in this urgent matter.