Brittain v. Twitter, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Case No. 19-cv-00114-YGR (2019)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
In 2018, Craig Brittain (plaintiff) ran as a candidate for the United States Senate. Leading up to the election, Brittain frequently used the online platform owned by Twitter, Inc. (defendant) to post false or inflammatory statements about political opponents and the Parkland shooting survivors and even a fake endorsement from then-President Donald Trump. In response, Twitter suspended Brittain’s accounts. Brittain sued Twitter, asserting eight causes of action: violation of the First Amendment, violation of federal election law, breach of contract, conversion, violation of antitrust law, negligent infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and promissory estoppel. Twitter moved to dismiss, arguing that § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized it from liability for most of Brittain’s claims because they ultimately arose from Twitter’s decision to suspend Brittain’s accounts and therefore sought to treat Twitter as a publisher of third-party content.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

