From Hines v. Stamos, decided today by Judge Terry Doughty (W.D. La.):
This case stems from Defendants' alleged participation in censoring Plaintiffs' speech on social media. Defendants are "nonprofits, academic institutions, and researchers alleged to have been involved in examining the issue of the viral spread of disinformation on social-media and the resulting harms to society." Plaintiffs are social media users, each with significant followings, who allege that the acts of Defendants caused Plaintiffs' disfavored viewpoints to be censored—namely their speech concerning COVID-19 and elections. As a result of this alleged past and ongoing censorship, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and "others similarly situated," against Defendants….
The court didn't agree with plaintiffs that they had conclusively established that the federal court in Louisiana had personal jurisdiction over defendants—but it did conclude that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts that would justify further discovery as to personal jurisdiction:
