Meta Sheds Influencer Andrew Tate’s Lawsuit Over Instagram Ban

Meta convinced a federal court to quash a lawsuit challenging its termination of six Instagram accounts run by self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate and his brother, Tristan.

The Tate brothers are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the First Amendment, and Instagram’s terms of use agreement to pursue claims alleging the account removals violated their rights under state and federal law, US District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said in a Tuesday order dismissing the case.

Meta banned Andrew and Tristan Tate from Instagram for “promoting ‘dangerous individuals or organizations’” and “inciting misogyny,” the opinion said. In response, the brothers sued the company in Los Angeles Superior Court in August 2025 for breach of contract, tortious interference, and negligent misrepresentation, among other claims. After the case was transferred to federal court, Meta moved to dismiss the suit and strike all state law claims asserted under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

The brothers sought $50 million in compensatory damages and argued that their account removals weren’t an “isolated enforcement action grounded in neutral application” of Instagram’s terms of use. Rather, they claimed the account terminations were related to the “intense international scrutiny” they faced at the time due to their house arrests in Romania connected to a human trafficking and sexual exploitation investigation.

Corley agreed with Meta’s argument that the account terminations were “a content-based decision that Section 230 makes immune from liability.” Section 230 immunity extends decisions regarding whether to publish or withdraw content, Corley said.

The Tate brothers also failed to plausibly allege a contract claim under Section 230 since they never “identified any contractual promise that applies to their Instagram accounts, let alone a promise not to terminate their Instagram accounts without prior notice or a promise to provide a right to appeal,” Corley said.

She additionally rejected their First Amendment claim because Meta doesn’t qualify as a government actor, the opinion said, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s 2024 ruling in Children’s Health Def. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Brenneman Apc and Equity Legal Pllc represented Andrew and Tristan Tate. Kirkland and Ellis LLP represented Meta.

The case is Tate v. Meta Platforms Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:26-cv-00901, 4/28/26.