in Re Facebook, Inc. and Facebook, Inc. D/B/A Instagram ( 2020 )

Petitions for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and
Dissenting Opinions filed April 28, 2020.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-19-00845-CV
NO. 14-19-00847-CV
IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. AND FACEBOOK, INC. D/B/A INSTAGRAM,
Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
334th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 2018-69816, 2018-82214
NO. 14-19-00886-CV
IN RE FACEBOOK INC. D/B/A INSTAGRAM, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
151st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2019-16262
MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully dissent from these denials of mandamus and I urge the Texas
Supreme Court to review these cases. Federal law grants Facebook immunity from
suits such as these. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. Because Facebook has immunity, these
suits have no basis in law, and dismissal under Texas Rule of Procedure 91a is
proper.
The Real Parties in Interest urge our court to adopt a construction of Section
230 that has been adopted by only a few courts. The vast majority of the courts
reviewing this law have adopted the arguments made by Facebook. The artful
pleading by the Real Parties in Interest should not prevail over the statute.
Fewer cases discuss the 2018 amendments to Section 230 known as the Fight
Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (“FOSTA”). However, this exception to
immunity—on its face—does not apply to a civil action in state court.
Because Facebook has federal statutory immunity from these suits, I
respectfully dissent.
/s/ Tracy Christopher
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
2