Texas Court Dismisses Ken Paxton’s Lawsuit Against Yelp For Accurately Describing Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Last fall, we wrote about Yelp going to court in California to try to block Texas's indicted and facing trial shortly Attorney General Ken Paxton from suing the company for using its speech to accurately warn users that Crisis Pregnancy Centers" do not generally offer any actual medical care.

As you may know, anti-abortion advocates have opened up so-called crisis pregnancy centers," which are designed to look like medical facilities to help pregnant mothers consider their options. Many people are pointed to these crisis centers instead, when searching for potential abortion providers. The centers pretend to be a neutral advocate to help them consider their options, while in reality they are designed to steer expectant mothers away from abortion.

Yelp, quite reasonably, decided to use its own First Amendment rights to provide some more info about those crisis pregnancy centers to better inform potential visitors. It posted notices on crisis pregnancy centers saying: This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite."

Ken Paxton, who cosplays as a free speech" supporter on the internet, wrote a letter to Yelp threatening to sue them for this speech. In response, Yelp changed the message to be even more accurate, but Paxton was still upset with their speech, which now said This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers." This is accurate speech, which even Paxton admits is accurate. He just doesn't like it.

After Texas threatened to sue Yelp once again, Yelp went to court first in a California federal court to get Paxton to shut up and to stop interfering with the company's free speech rights. Paxton responded by suing Yelp in a Texas state court. Unfortunately, the court in California reluctantly" rejected the lawsuit due to Younger abstention," which basically says a federal court doesn't have jurisdiction over a case while a state court is considering the same matter. Yelp has appealed to the 9th Circuit.

In the meantime, though, last week, the Texas state court tossed out Paxton's lawsuit. There's not much to go on in the order, as it basically just says we agree with Yelp's special appearance" in this case.

Having considered Defendant Yelp Inc.'s (Yelp") Verified Special Appearance (Special Appearance"), the responses, and the replies, if any, the Court finds that the Special Appearance should be GRANTED.

You can look at the Special Appearance" by Yelp which lays out the main reasons the case should be dismissed, with the big one being the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Yelp:

This case involves a misguided lawsuit by the State of Texas (State") against Yelp, a California-based website operator with no offices in Texas, for allegedly violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA") by posting a truthful consumer notice about crisis pregnancy centers on its nationwide website. In the Petition, the State does not allege that Yelp is at home" in Texas, that the consumer notice was purposely directed at Texas, or that the DTPA claim arises from or relates to Yelp's contacts with Texas. Instead, the State admits that Yelp is located in San Francisco, California, alleges that Yelp targeted pregnancy resources centers nationwide," and concedes that the DTPA claim arises out of a notice posted, from California, on the Yelp business pages of every pregnancy resource center across the nation," not merely those in Texas.

Yelp files this Special Appearance because the Petition should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction for many reasons. Yelp, a nonresident of Texas, lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to demonstrate purposeful availment, the DTPA claim does not arise from or relate to Yelp's contacts with Texas, and the exercise of jurisdiction over Yelp would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Yelp should not be haled across the country into a foreign jurisdiction to respond to a baseless claim premised on conduct that occurred exclusively in California.

So, it sure sounds like the Texas court tossed the case out on jurisdictional grounds, without even needing to get to the ridiculousness of Texas trying to sue a company over its accurate speech. The case in front of the 9th Circuit remains in play, though I'm not sure how this latest situation will play into that. If the Texas case is now dead (though, I guess Texas could appeal), then the Younger abstention issue should be moot?

Either way, it's yet another example (one of so many) of Texas showing off its unconstitutional, censorial tendencies - in a state with leadership who claims to be supportive of free speech.