Trump's lawyers told a federal court tonight that Twitter's forum-selection agreement -- which requires that he sue the company in California (not Florida, where he sued) -- does not apply to him "as the 45th President of the United States." 
Trump's argument seems to be that his Twitter account was actually operated on behalf of the government, inasmuch as he made announcements about policy. And Twitter's TOS don't apply to government entities that cannot accept venue limitations.
But if the court accepts the argument that Trump's Twitter account became a thing operated by and for the U.S. government, that would seem to open up the big question of why Trump, a private citizen, would have standing to sue over it.
(The argument also doesn't address why the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who weren't president, should escape the terms of service because Trump was.)
Trump's lawyers expressly say his Twitter account "was a government account, and not a private one when he was censored."
If so, it's really hard to imagine how Trump and various other people who aren't the gov't would possibly have standing to sue over that.
If so, it's really hard to imagine how Trump and various other people who aren't the gov't would possibly have standing to sue over that.
Trump also argues that Twitter's terms of service shouldn't be binding because the product is addictive, leaving addicts little choice but to agree.
(The lawsuit is seeking to force Twitter to let him back on to the addictive website.)
(The lawsuit is seeking to force Twitter to let him back on to the addictive website.)
Lawyers for Trump - a self-described billionaire - say his "access to resources to conduct extensive litigation in Northern California are limited."
Here's the filing - storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
