In 2018, Jason Fyk sued Fb for taking out and blocking off his content material. My previous summary of this litigation marketing campaign:

His lawsuit in opposition to Fb was once dashed by Section 230 in the district court. The Ninth Circuit quickly agreed after which denied his en banc request. The Very best Courtroom denied cert. Thereafter, he attempted to vacate the district courtroom resolution, which caused a brand new cycle of rejection through the district courtroom, the ninth Circuit, and the Very best Courtroom.

Having exhausted his arguments in courtroom two times, he introduced a 3rd expedition in opposition to Phase 230. He sued the federal government to claim Phase 230 unconstitutional. The judge’s response could be characterised as: WTF = What The Fyk?

I guess the 230 constitutionality problem is on enchantment in DC. In the meantime, his Sisyphean try to reopen the California case fails once more within the 9th Circuit.

Fyk argued that the regulation relating to anticompetitive animus had modified all the way through his 6-year-long litigation quest, bringing up the Enigma v. Malwarebytes and Lemmon v. Snap selections. Then again, the 9th Circuit in the past rejected the results of Malwarebytes for Fyk’s case in its ultimate ruling, and “Lemmon says not anything about whether or not Phase 230(c)(1) shields social-media suppliers for content-moderation selections made with anticompetitive animus.” With none exchange within the related regulation, the courtroom simply dismisses the case once more. Remarkably, the courtroom doesn’t impose any sanctions for what some courts would possibly have felt was once vexatious relitigation of resolved issues.

Will this be the ultimate time a courtroom says “no” to Fyk’s try to relitigate the case that courts have many times terminated? Because the Magic-8-Ball would possibly say, “very in doubt.”

Case Quotation: Fyk v. Facebook, Inc., 2024 WL 5074905 (ninth Cir. Dec. 11, 2024). The CourtListener page.