"Judge Questions Meta's Practices in Blacklisting Case Involving Adult Performers"

San Francisco, CA - The California federal judge overseeing claims that Meta blacklists certain adult performers questioned the social media giant's practice of maintaining its list of dangerous organizations and individuals as a "living document" that is constantly changing and not archived, suggesting the policy appears to destroy evidence and "sounds nefarious."

U.S. District Judge William Alsup's comments came during a hearing on Meta Platform Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. Performers Dawn Dangaard, Kelly Gilbert, and Jennifer Allbaugh allege Meta conspired with the subscription site OnlyFans to boost the risqué platform over competitors, causing them to lose revenues and followers on their social media accounts.

The performers claim Meta illegally used its list of dangerous organizations and individuals (DOI) to blacklist them from advertising on Instagram and Facebook after Meta executives allegedly received bribes from OnlyFans executives. Although the lawsuit was initially filed in 2022 as a proposed class action, the plaintiffs asked Judge Alsup to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction in March—a request the judge denied on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argued that Meta's data retention policies hampered their ability to gather evidence, as Meta reportedly does not retain certain user referral and engagement data beyond 90 days and does not archive its DOI list. Meta's counsel, K. Winn Allen of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, contended that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their claims and did not attempt to depose any Meta witnesses.

Judge Alsup expressed skepticism over Meta's practice of not archiving the DOI list, stating that it "sounds nefarious" and raises suspicions of evidence destruction. He noted the importance of retaining changes to such lists for accountability and transparency.

Plaintiffs' counsel, David E. Azar of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, argued that they sought data through interrogatories instead of depositions, believing it to be more efficient. However, Meta's responses indicated that the company does not retain the requested data, complicating the plaintiffs' efforts to substantiate their claims.

Judge Alsup criticized the plaintiffs' reliance on interrogatories and their failure to depose Meta witnesses, emphasizing the need for thorough evidence gathering in class action lawsuits. He also questioned the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' evidence regarding their bribery allegations.

Meta has faced scrutiny for its data retention practices, with similar accusations against Google and Amazon executives in other high-profile cases. At the end of the hearing, Judge Alsup did not rule on Meta's motion for summary judgment but instructed the parties to review the hearing transcript and submit sworn declarations to ensure the accuracy of their statements.

The performers are represented by David E. Azar of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. Meta is represented by K. Winn Allen of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Dawn Dangaard et al. v. Instagram LLC et al., case number 3:22-cv-01101, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.