The Tates sue TikTok

... For, essentially, being deplatformed. I’ll be interested to see how this pans out, since I believe arbitrary and capricious denial of access, without meaningful due process or appeal (an apparent example, although, also an example of someone who, based on that post, I personally wish would speak less ... but I don’t support YouTube banning them ...) is a huge issue for our present moment.

(Yes, I know, they’re private entities, but they’ve also become the equivalent of the town square - see, e.g., Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) - and IMHO there should be more protections; of course, that doesn’t scale ...).

I don’t know anything about Tristan Tate. I don’t really know that much about Andrew, except that he seems like a loathsome individual, who has the douchiest take on reading I’ve ever encountered:

But I would like to see some good law re access to platforms like this. Good law. Which makes me worry that the apparently solo practitioner attorney (admitted to practice in 2021, after ‘attending’ an online “unaccredited correspondence law school”) who signed the complaint, appears to be in a bit over their head. For instance, this allegation as part of the “17200” cause of action (¶ 73):

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and general damages. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, restitution and injunctive relief under California law. The resulting reputational damage has led to economic losses exceeding $10,000,000.00. 

 But, as the publishers of the Bible of California civil litigation explain:

Damages not recoverable under §§ 17200 and 17203: For almost two decades, perhaps the greatest controversy under § 17200 was whether private litigants may recover damages. That debate was ended with the Supreme Court’s unequivocal pronouncement in Bank of the West v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 2 C4th 1254, 1266, 10 CR2d 538, 545, that “damages are not available under section 17203.” [Accord, Heller v. Norcal Mut. Ins. Co. (1994) 8 C4th 30, 45, 32 CR2d 200, 208; see also Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co. (1999) 20 C4th 163, 179, 83 CR2d 548, 560—“Plaintiffs may not receive damages, … or attorney fees”; accord, Prata v. Sup.Ct. (2001) 91 CA4th 1128, 1139, 111 CR2d 296, 304; America Online, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (2001) 90 CA4th 1, 108 CR2d 699, fn.10; Vikco Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Ohio Indem. Co. (1999) 70 CA4th 55, 67, 82 CR2d 442, 450—“unrealized commissions and general compensatory damages” are not recoverable]

The Rutter Group, Business & Professions Code Section 17200 Practice, ¶ 8:102.

This is going to be interesting.