Adrienne Sepaniak King v. Meta Platforms, Inc., fka Facebook, Inc.

Should this Court 1) adopt the opinion of Justice Thomas in his concurrence to the denial of certiorari in Malwarebytes v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, 592 US ___, 141 S.Ct. 13, 208 L.Ed.2d 197 (2020), that Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2009), was wrongly decided in holding that 47 USC 230(c)(1) provides interactive computer services (like Respondent Facebook in this case) with immunity for removing content in addition to immunity for hosting content by “adopting the all too common practice of [courts’] reading extra immunity into statutes where it does not belong,” 2) reverse the Barnes decision by holding that 47 USC 230(c)(1) does not provide immunity for removing content, and 3) reverse the holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, based on Barnes, which affirmed the holding of the District Court that Facebook was immune, pursuant to 47 USC 230(c)(1), from King’s cause of action against Facebook for breach of contract for removing content from and disabling King’s Facebook Account without having required Facebook to show immunity pursuant to 47 USC 230(c)(2)(A) for removal of content from King’s Facebook Account?