Twitter Inc. defeated a lawsuit challenging its repeat bans of a Republican Senate candidate and former “revenge porn” website operator who said victims of the Parkland school shooting were paid actors.

Craig Brittain filed a 78-page complaint last year on behalf of himself and his Senate campaign in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where he’s seeking the GOP nomination. Before his Senate run, Brittain was best known for settling Federal Trade Commission claims that his website IsAnyoneDown.com published nude photos of women without their consent, only taking them down if the women paid $200 to $500.

His suit against Twitter, which asserted a conspiracy to censor right-wing viewpoints, argued that the social media platform is a de facto public forum bound by the First Amendment’s ban on “content based” speech restrictions by the government. It alleged violations of the First Amendment and federal election laws, multiple state law torts, and antitrust claims.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers tossed the case June 10. Because Brittain sued Twitter in its capacity as a publisher making editorial decisions, most of his claims are barred by the Communications Decency Act, which shields websites from liability based on their publication of third-party content, the judge said. That includes user posts on social media platforms, she noted.

“Brittain expressly acknowledges that he, not Twitter, created and operated the accounts,” Rogers wrote.

The judge acknowledged that the CDA doesn’t foreclose Brittain’s antitrust claim because that part of the suit—which asked the court to break up Twitter—concerns the company’s conduct in the marketplace, not its role as a publisher of content. Twitter, Facebook Inc., and Google Inc. control 90% of the social media market, the complaint said, accusing them of illegal monopolization.

But Brittain lacks standing to bring that claim because a Twitter ban is not an “injury of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” Rogers said. He also failed to allege any facts suggesting an actual conspiracy to monopolize the social media market, rather than just “conscious parallelism” by companies that weren’t coordinating with one another, the judge found.

Brittain has until July 9 to try amending his antitrust claim, Rogers said. She dismissed the rest of the case with prejudice.

Brittain represented himself and his Senate campaign, although the judge warned him to obtain separate counsel for the campaign by July 2 or risk having it dismissed from the case.

Perkins Coie LLP represented Twitter

The case is Brittain v. Twitter Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 19-cv-114, 6/10/19.