From Judge Terry Doughty's opinion yesterday in Hines v. Stamos (W.D. La.) (already being appealed), rejecting defendants' motion to compel arbitration:
Hines is a … co-Director of Health Freedom Louisiana, a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. Hoft is … the founder, owner, and operator of the news website, The Gateway Pundit. Hines and Hoft allege their … First Amendment [rights] … were violated by the censorship and/or suppression of their views on social media platforms….
Defendants [who are involved with the Stanford Internet Observatory and other similar organizations] are alleged to have worked closely and/or collaborated with state and federal government officials to urge, pressure, and coerce social media platforms to monitor and censor disfavored speakers and content….
According to Hines and Hoft, they do not seek to enforce Facebook, Twitter and/or YouTube's terms of service (which included an arbitration agreement) against the social media platforms, but they instead intend to challenge the pressure, coercion, cooperation, and entwinement of these outside persons and entities working with government officials to suppress and/or remove free speech from social media platforms….
No party disputes an arbitration clause exists in the Facebook and Twitter terms of service agreements. Also, no party disputes that the Defendants were neither parties nor signatories to the arbitration agreements entered into by Hines and Hoft. In an attempt to enforce the arbitration clause and the choice of law provisions in the Hines and Hoft terms of service agreement, Defendants attempt to use an equitable estoppel legal theory….
