PCMag editors select and review products independently. If you buy through affiliate links, we may earn commissions, which help support our testing.

Court Rejects Lawsuit Claiming Social Media Companies Suppress Conservative Voices

The ruling arrives as President Trump has been accusing Twitter of silencing conservative voices after the social media company decided to fact-check his tweets on mail-in balloting.

 & Michael Kan Principal Reporter

Our team tests, rates, and reviews more than 1,500 products each year to help you make better buying decisions and get more from technology.

Our Expert
LOOK INSIDE PC LABS HOW WE TEST
65 EXPERTS
43 YEARS
41,500+ REVIEWS
(Photo by Saul Martinez/Getty Images)

As President Trump accuses Twitter of suppressing free speech, a federal court has ruled you can’t actually sue a social media company for violating the First Amendment. 

The reason? The First Amendment is designed to stop the government from curtailing free speech, not private companies, according to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court's ruling on Wednesday was made in response to a lawsuit from the legal group Freedom Watch and Laura Loomer, a right-wing pundit who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook over anti-Muslim posts she made.

Back in 2018, they filed a complaint, claiming Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter have been breaking the law by conspiring to suppress conservative viewpoints. A year ago, a federal court dismissed the complaint, and on Wednesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion, ruling that none of the tech companies named violated the US Constitution.

“In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the judges wrote in their ruling. “Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But, under Halleck, ‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’”  

The lawsuit also tried to argue that the tech companies are in violation of antitrust laws, citing their control of American social media and their bans on certain right-wing pundits. But the judges remained unconvinced, and pointed to Freedom Watch’s failure to supply proof of a coordinated conspiracy. 

The judges also wanted evidence that the tech companies acquired their influence through anticompetitive conduct. However, the ruling notes: “The only anticompetitive conduct that Freedom Watch alleges (without supporting factual allegations) is that the Platforms conspired against it to suppress conservative content, but not that the Platforms conspired to acquire or maintain monopoly power.”

The ruling is a setback for conservative critics who argue tech companies should remain completely neutral on political debates, even though misinformation can be involved. On Wednesday, President Trump himself made a similar claim when blasting Twitter for fact-checking his tweets about mail-in voting causing election fraud. 

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen,” Trump threatened in a tweet. 

However, under the First Amendment, the President has no power to constrain the free speech of a private company, says the American Civil Liberties Union. “The First Amendment also clearly prohibits the President from taking any action to stop Twitter from pointing out his blatant lies about voting by mail,” said ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane in a statement. 

Still, the debate about whether the First Amendment should apply to private companies will likely rage on at a time when internet giants such as Google and Facebook are expanding their influence over the internet. In the meantime, Freedom Watch’s founder Larry Klayman told Politico he plans to press on with his lawsuit, despite the dismissal. 

“We’re going to obviously move for en banc reconsideration and go to the Supremes, if we have to,” Klayman reportedly said.

Further Reading

Social Medium Reviews

About Our Expert

Michael Kan

Michael Kan

Principal Reporter

My Experience

I've been a journalist for over 15 years. I got my start as a schools and cities reporter in Kansas City and joined PCMag in 2017, where I cover satellite internet services, cybersecurity, PC hardware, and more. I'm currently based in San Francisco, but previously spent over five years in China, covering the country's technology sector.

Since 2020, I've covered the launch and explosive growth of SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service, writing 600+ stories on availability and feature launches, but also the regulatory battles over the expansion of satellite constellations, fights with rival providers like AST SpaceMobile and Amazon, and the effort to expand into satellite-based mobile service. I've combed through FCC filings for the latest news and driven to remote corners of California to test Starlink's cellular service.

I also cover cyber threats, from ransomware gangs to the emergence of AI-based malware. In 2024 and 2025, the FTC forced Avast to pay consumers $16.5 million for secretly harvesting and selling their personal information to third-party clients, as revealed in my joint investigation with Motherboard.

I also cover the PC graphics card market. Pandemic-era shortages led me to camp out in front of a Best Buy to get an RTX 3000. I'm now following how the AI-driven memory shortage is impacting the entire consumer electronics market. I'm always eager to learn more, so please jump in the comments with feedback and send me tips.

The Best Tech I've Had:

  • My first video game console: a Nintendo Famicom
  • I loved my Sega Saturn despite PlayStation's popularity.
  • The iPod Video I received as a gift in college
  • Xbox 360 FTW
  • The Galaxy Nexus was the first smartphone I was proud to own.
  • The PC desktop I built in 2013, which still works to this day.

Read full bio