APAG Board Members Motion for Lawsuit Against Meta to Be Dropped

SAN FRANCISCO—Counsel for three adult performers affiliated with the Adult Performance Artists Guild (APAG) motioned to a federal district court to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, conspired with OnlyFans to block adverts. According to a new filing, lawyers for the three performers met with Meta's counsel and said that they were told the company didn't have the evidence available to back the key theory in their case. The theory established in the initial lawsuit is that their posts were filtered through Meta's internal databases, which flag and remove content from supposedly "dangerous individuals and organizations" in an effort to curtail terrorism and extremism, reports Law360.com reporter Bonnie Eslinger. In the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs allege that Meta lacks data and documents showing that they were treated as dangerous.  "Based on the information Meta defendants provided, the information essential to plaintiffs' class allegations is not available," the motion reads. Further discovery is "futile." Meta also provided counsel for the porn stars with "ambiguous and incomplete responses." "As a result, [plaintiffs] cannot obtain information necessary to establish class certification," reads the motion's conclusion. "For the foregoing reasons, the court should dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Meta submitted a motion for a summary judgment after acknowledging the lack of data available. Performers say there is no federal jurisdiction for the case. U.S. District Judge William Alsup scheduled on the docket for motions to be heard on April 24.  AVN previously reported that counsel Fenix International Limited, the parent company of OnlyFans, was removed from the case. The plaintiffs were unable to establish personal jurisdiction in California. They alleged that individuals employed in high positions at Meta Platforms in London conspired with Fenix to censor advertisements and block competitors. "The court was sold a bill of goods," said Meta's counsel at the time. "Not a single piece of this purported scheme is supported by evidence. There were no bribes. There is no evidence any terrorism-related tools were misused. "And plaintiffs produced no verifiable records or internal Meta documents supporting their far-fetched theories."