Meta Platforms Inc. Removes Tate Lawsuit to Federal Court
Meta Platforms Inc. filed a notice of removal to transfer a lawsuit brought by Emory Andrew Tate III and Tristan Tate from California state court to federal court. The plaintiffs allege Meta unlawfully removed them from Instagram and violated their rights.
Read with context. This preserved document reflects its source and publication date. Check the linked source context page for corrections, replacements, or later developments.
If the PDF does not display in your browser, download the original file.
About this document
A plain-language guide to the contents and context of this specific court or DOJ document.
Background of the Lawsuit
Emory Andrew Tate III and Tristan Tate filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 13, 2025. They allege Meta unlawfully removed them from Instagram, violating its terms of use and engaging in a campaign to suppress their viewpoints. The plaintiffs claim Meta acted in concert with government officials and ideological groups, transforming it into a state actor under federal law. They seek damages exceeding $10 million, restitution, and punitive damages.
Supported by PDF pages 1, 2Basis for Removal to Federal Court
Meta Platforms Inc. filed a notice of removal to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Meta argues removal is proper because the lawsuit includes a federal constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, granting federal question jurisdiction. Additionally, Meta asserts diversity jurisdiction, citing complete diversity between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The plaintiffs are residents of Dubai and Romania, while Meta is a Delaware corporation headquartered in California.
Supported by PDF pages 2, 3, 4Plaintiffs’ Allegations Against Meta
The plaintiffs allege Meta’s decision to remove them from Instagram was not a neutral application of its terms of use but part of a coordinated campaign to suppress disfavored viewpoints. They claim Meta violated its contractual obligations and public commitments to fairness and transparency. The lawsuit includes twelve causes of action, including breach of contract, tortious interference, and a First Amendment violation. Plaintiffs also allege Meta’s actions caused emotional distress and unjust enrichment.
Supported by PDF pages 3, 4Meta’s Defense and Procedural Arguments
Meta denies the plaintiffs’ claims and asserts that Meta Platforms Ireland Limited, not Meta Platforms Inc., is the proper defendant for the Instagram-related allegations. Meta argues the plaintiffs accepted Instagram’s terms of use, which designate Irish courts as the appropriate forum. Meta also contends removal is timely because it has not yet been served with the complaint. The company reserves all defenses, including challenges to personal jurisdiction and venue.
Supported by PDF pages 2, 5Legal and Procedural Context
Meta’s notice of removal cites federal statutes governing removal procedures, including 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and § 1446(b). Meta argues the forum defendant rule does not apply because it has not been properly served. The company references case law supporting ‘snap removal,’ where a defendant removes a case before being served. Meta also filed a notice of removal with the state court and served it on the plaintiffs, as required by federal law.
Supported by PDF pages 5, 6Document record
- Document type
- Other DOJ document
- Category
- Civil
- Publication date
- 2025-08-22
- DOJ office
- Not stated by source
- Case number
- 3:26-cv-00901
- Collected
- 2026-11-13
- Original filename
- gov.uscourts.cand.463442.1.0.pdf
Source & integrity
This copy is preserved from the linked source record. The fingerprint below lets you verify that the bytes have not changed.
367036077f02f87d35d08869cf502ae8975705eebecd35cc5d739c8caff81d62ShareIt.onl is an independent public-document index and is not affiliated with the U.S. Department of Justice or CourtListener. The linked source record remains authoritative.