Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Hart v. Facebook, Inc.

Case docket

Hart v. Facebook, Inc. — U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., San Francisco

Hart v. Facebook, Inc. — U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., San Francisco — 10 documents in the archive, dated August 31, 2021 to May 9, 2023.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (8 filings); U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (1 filing)
Docket numbersNo. 3:22-cv-00737 — main docket · CourtListener docket 391509
No. 4:22-cv-00737 (no document in the archive is numbered on it) — other docket filed with this case
Filings10 public filings
Filed2021-08-31 – 2023-05-09
Document typesorders (2), complaint (1)
Original PDFs10 of 10

Case summary

Hart v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00737 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, was filed in August 2021 by Justin Hart, a California resident, against Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., President Joseph Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget. Hart alleges that between late 2020 and mid-2021 Facebook and Twitter flagged his posts as misinformation about COVID-19 and suspended or locked his accounts, and that this violated the First Amendment because the federal defendants acted jointly with the companies. On May 5, 2022 the court granted the motions to dismiss without leave to amend, and on May 9, 2023 it denied leave to amend the complaint.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiff Justin Hart; defendants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., President Joseph Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, No. 3:22-cv-00737-CRB; the page also holds the Southern District of California docket sheet for No. 3:21-cv-01543-W-WVG, where the case began
ProgramNot named in the filings on this page. The subject is social media moderation of COVID-19 posts
ClaimsA First Amendment claim against Facebook and Twitter requiring state action; claims against the federal defendants; claims under the Free Speech Clause of the California Constitution and California contract and tort law; and a Freedom of Information Act claim against HHS and OMB
Disposition or statusDismissed. The order of May 5, 2022 granted the motions to dismiss without leave to amend and declined to reach the anti-SLAPP motions to strike; the order of May 9, 2023 denied leave to amend as futile
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

Why were the claims dismissed?

Because Hart's sole federal claim against Facebook and Twitter required alleging state action and the court found he had not done so plausibly, citing Ninth Circuit authority that a private entity hosting speech on the internet is not a state actor. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

What happened to the federal defendants?

The May 9, 2023 order records that the case was dismissed because the complaint failed to state a First Amendment claim against Facebook and Twitter and failed to satisfy the causation and redressability elements of standing over the claims against the federal defendants.

Why was amendment refused?

The court held that Hart's new allegations, drawn from the government's FOIA production, discovery from a similar case and the "Twitter Files", do not support his federal claim, so filing an amended complaint would be futile.

Docket

10 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 3:22-cv-00737 — main docket

  1. Complaint — Hart v. FacebookEntry 1
  2. —Entries 2–68 are not in the archive
  3. Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss — Hart v. FacebookEntry 69
  4. —Entries 70–77 are not in the archive
  5. Plaintiff’s Combined Opposition to Motions to Dismiss — Hart v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.)Entry 78
  6. —Entries 79–82 are not in the archive
  7. Facebook’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Anti-SLAPP Motion — Hart v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.)Entry 83
  8. Federal Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Hart v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.)Entry 84
  9. Twitter’s Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike — Hart v. FacebookEntry 85
  10. Twitter’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Hart v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.)Entry 86
  11. Order Granting Motions to Dismiss — Hart v. FacebookEntry 87
  12. —Entries 88–126 are not in the archive
  13. Order Denying Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint — Hart v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.)Entry 127

Documents without an entry number

  1. Southern District Docket Sheet (Prior Proceeding) — Hart v. Facebook (N.D. Cal.)

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top