In Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01101-WHA, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171462 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2024), the plaintiffs (who are adult entertainment performers who use social media to disseminate their content and promote themselves with links "which allow users to watch plaintiffs' content for a price") alleged that the defendants had engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to boost the popularity of the OnlyFans adult website to the detriment of plaintiffs through two tactics: bribery and blacklisting. Relying on statements from  anonymous sources, plaintiffs alleged that bribes had been paid to demote or delete plaintiffs' accounts and posts on Instagram and Facebook to suppress their online visibility, which reduced their viewership on the adult entertainment websites on which plaintiffs appeared, to the benefit of the competing OnlyFans adult website.  

     More specifically, plaintiffs allege a blacklisting scheme whereby Meta defendants caused such demotion or removal by manipulating Facebook and Instagram databases to include plaintiffs in lists of dangerous individuals or organizations (“DIO List”). Such lists identify terrorists, and Facebook and Instagram's algorithms use those lists to demote or remove terrorist content. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta defendants share their lists of terrorists with other social media platforms via the “Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism” (“GIFCT”) shared hash database.

***

     This action began with spectacular allegations that OnlyFans had bribed Meta to blacklist adult entertainers who also used other competing sites. This was, in a way, to “monopolize” the adult entertainment market. After hearing this allegation at least twice, the Court instructed plaintiffs' counsel to go present proof of such a bribe and to specifically subpoena the banks that were allegedly involved in laundering the bribe. Plaintiffs' counsel were given the opportunity and eventually reported that they could find no proof of the bribe and withdrew the allegation. The complaint then shifted to claiming that Meta, for its own reasons, had discriminated against plaintiffs by blacklisting them. Again, the judge gave ample opportunities to plaintiffs' counsel to prove up this claim. Again, plaintiffs' counsel failed to find any poof. This is the basic reason that summary judgment, at long last, must be GRANTED to Meta defendants.

Professor Eric Goldman commented that the judge in this case "gives the benefit of the doubt to plaintiffs on motions to dismiss, only to hammer them on summary judgment if their evidence doesn't hold up to scrutiny."