Skip to main content

Unmasking Meta’s Misleading Fact Checks: Section 230 Publisher Liability and Online Freedom

As soon as I posted copy about Meta’s liability under Section 230, strange things started happening with my Instagram account. All will be revealed below. Meta thinks it can avoid civil liability, even if what it says about your content is false and even if what they say is designed to directly compete with your content financially.

So far, it has seemingly steamrolled many judges, with help from plaintiffs’ lawyers who CLEARLY don’t understand internet platforms, including social media platforms and their original functions. Originally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect companies like Meta if they were to restrict access to “harmful content,” aka pornographic content, death threats with intent to kill, etc.

But these internet services, with help from instrumentality influence in the FBI and other agencies, now rate, review, and restrict third-party content and even augment. They do so by using an ABSURD and poor interpretation of Section 230 to escape and evade legal liability for fraud, defamation, and other civil and quasi-criminal acts.

Tech companies seem to rely on revolving door US government connections and law clerks to steer judges, many of whom admittedly are not internet law experts. As discussed here, it’s like the wild wild west for billionaire monopolists, who appear to have defacto control of both political parties and many US regulatory agencies. Most of the cases brought have been dismissed on technicalities, making most consumer protection lawyers shy away, always seeking the lower-hanging fruits.

No one wants to face a federal judge when the other side has billions in defense funds and the ability to destroy the same judge online with an army of bots and fact-checkers. Because of this, some states, including a new Florida and Texas law, are trying to force the original intent of Section 230 at a state level. In other words, if Meta thinks it can choose to create, alter, or mislabel content as opposed to providing users a way to remove or block “smut” (like X does), these state courts won’t give them the same warm reception that Facebook has allegedly been getting in the Northern District of California.

Such content created by others is protected as free speech from the government (can’t sue the platform for defamation for what another person said or did online.) But the now drunk with power and arrogant Meta thinks it can censor anything it wants and not be held accountable. A law that was passed in 1996 to protect users from smut is now used as a bludgeon to batter users with false, misleading, and often anti-competitive content.

Now, a person like former President Trump, your family members, or a parent complaining about school board censorship can be readily destroyed by Meta’s equivalent of the “thought police.” We know this was never the intent of Section 230, not by a longshot. Just because a few lower courts and the Ninth Circuit got it wrong doesn’t mean it’s right. However, no executive order can fix this one, and Meta and its co-conspirator instrumentalities in its revolving door govt employment scheme should be held liable.

Lawyers of the world must unite before data privacy and everything else about honest people are canceled in favor of websites and services that are nothing less or more than state actors and instrumentalities working against We the People.

Have you ever seen a post flagged on Meta’s platforms with a warning about ‘false news’ or ‘misinformation’?

Of course, you have. And it might have read something like this:

“This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)”

When you see this travesty, what’s your first thought? Do you accept the fact check at face value or start questioning the validity of the labeling process? If you’re in the latter category, you aren’t alone, especially with YouTube algorithms. Like many others, you might have picked up the scent of something that might not be as it seems, something more like an Orwellian twist where slavery is freedom.

In this article, we will help you uncover the layers of deception beneath Meta’s

“fact-checking” and how this relates to the legal shield of the Content Decency Act, referred to as Section 230.

Let’s Take a Look at a Deceptive Fact Check and Punitive Action Taken By Internet Platforms Insta-Facebook-Meta

Within several hours of posting my three-part Sue Meta Under Section 230 series on Instagram under the user @themichaelehline, I was notified that my account had now been throttled for 90 days. The catch is, like other complaints I am hearing, Meta is targeting older posts, but achieving the same result, which is to ban my account while appearing perfectly fair.

Other users who followed me or shared the content also received a warning that, in effect, they would be punished as well. Several users immediately unfollowed me, and an attorney friend of mine for almost 15 years accused me of “disinfo” since there was a “fact check.” Meta’s action here has severely damaged my reputation.

Note That I am PUNISHED for an Old Post, Not the Post Hostile to Meta?

So I wanted to expose just how ridiculous the fact checks are, to begin with, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Facebook and most social sites besides X are pushing a self-serving agenda, making them just as liable as any other publisher or purveyor of false, misleading or defamatory information published by one person about another.

In my experience, within hours of me posting videos about Section 230 and the unfair way social media companies have escaped its proper enforcement, an ancient post of mine was flagged as “false.” Of course, my account was throttled.

One of the videos I posted on Instagram started my fall from grace.

Section 230 videos leading to suspension

SECTION 230 Part 3 video with Fyk.

As you can see, rather than outright remove my videos, all of a sudden, Meta moved to find my account “in violation” of its bullshit policies that can be interpreted ANY WAY Meta wants while receiving US government protections under Section 230. Watch Part 3 to get an idea of why.

Example for The Fake and Misleading FACT CHECK:

Our Post, a Parody, Says, “Awake Yet?”

Global warming agenda

It pokes fun at many posts over the years and anecdotal doomsayers but NEVER mentions the word “scientists,” etc. It’s having some fun about taxes going up and predictions about doomsday being exaggerated.

Of course, since Meta has taken it upon itself to decide what the truth is and isn’t, as well as what reality is or isn’t, they went ahead and “hired” their surrogate, or “instrumentality,” in this case, the Democrat fringe group, ClimateFedback.Org.

Here is the title of their “Independent Fact Check.”

“Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s.” 

As you can see, nothing in the image says anything about scientists. It’s clear that Meta and the current US administration want to create a false impression of scientific consensus, as they did during the pandemic by silencing at least one Nobel Laureate who disagreed with mRNA tech to treat viruses as “fringe.” So much so that they literally assumed facts not in evidence to create a strike against my user account. Their appeals process is equally absurd.

This is improper. As soon as Meta throws itself into the business of thought policing, its goals, intent, and everything else are called into question. It can not claim it is not a publisher under Section 230(c)(1), let alone pretend its motives as a “Good Samaritan” are free from judicial or citizen oversight.

Let’s get into this a little more. First off, the fact check labels are designed to and, in fact, DO disparage and blacklist users who share it perfectly fits the descriptions of unfair business practices, as well as false and deceptive business practices, NOT just defamation, as will be discussed. 

META: More Than Just A Platform – Communications Decency Act? 

Let’s begin by understanding the essence of the issue. Section 230, or 47 U.S.C. § 230, is a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It’s purpose? To protect online platforms from liability for content posted by their users (Originally kiddie porn and adult porn from being seen by kids.) It was assumed social media was acting as a Good Samaritan to protect the public from “smut.” But if it did take action, ANY action other than providing users a block button, for example, Meta’s Good Faith, was always at issue. Getting this so far?

Michael Ehline's Fake Check

Online Sex Trafficking Act, Etc.

Both lawmakers and presidents started growing weary of Section 230 and internet platforms, especially the one with hard-core political activist Yoel Roth in charge of “trust” and child sexual abuse material. In 2018, two significant pieces of legislation were passed – the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act  (SESTA).

Effect of Child Sexual Abuse Material Laws?

These laws altered aspects of Section 230, implying that platforms can now be held responsible for advertisements about prostitution posted by third parties. The primary objective of these changes was to grant authorities an easier pathway to prosecute and control these activities.

But as Meta and social media strengthened their revolving door partnership with the FBI and other US cabinet-level agencies, it appears that smut is now anything one political party or platform doesn’t like when it does not serve their financial or political interests.

Simply put, as a matter of law, Section 230 treats Meta not as a publisher or speaker but merely as a platform hosting user-generated content. This means they’re ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE shielded from legal ramifications arising from their users’ actions. 

This seems reasonable until you peel back the layers and see Meta’s own actions in play in harming users they disagree with politically or compete with financially. You see, they’ve taken action whenever Meta uses their perceived protections under Section 230 to label, classify, or unfairly compete with a content creator. They transform themselves from being a passive, interactive computer service/provider content provider (a passive platform) to an information content provider (an active player). Meta is now promoting one user or their content over another, for better or worse. 

“Actions from Meta can result in a triable issue of material fact where motives, including bias, monetary, or political motives, can be questioned.”

So, it seems we have much more than just a platform to scrutinize. It may be time to reexamine Meta’s role and the use (or misuse) of Section 230. 

Now that we’ve peeled back some initial layers of this issue let’s dig deeper into what exactly transpires when you see a post flagged by Meta.

You might notice a notification stating: “This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”

The first reaction might be to trust the fact check implicitly, right? But is everything as it seems? 

Consider this: sometimes, a post is labeled as false or misleading and has no semblance to the original fact check conducted. Bizarre. But it’s more than just odd – it feels a bit like manipulation. The fact checker presumes certain facts, not even discussed in the original meme or post, labels it as false, and then curbs the account of the person who posted it.

Does this strike a chord with historical instances of censorship, such as those exhibited by the Nazis, KGB, or Stasi? 

Yet, Meta attempts to deflect any backlash or legal repercussions, using Section 230 as a shield. They argue that fact-checkers are independent entities despite being employed by Meta. They claim this allows them to introduce a layer of objectivity to the fact-checking process. But can this claim hold water when such fact checkers have the power (given them by the all-powerful Zuck) to suppress content and restrict accounts? 

In light of such behavior, the line between being a neutral content platform and a content provider isn’t just blurred – it becomes almost invisible. How so? Well, Meta doesn’t just provide the platform for users’ content. It also assumes the role of a user on its platform and employs “independent” fact checkers, many far-left organizations aligned heavily with Zuck’s political viewpoints. 

Meta is now able to influence viewer sentiment and control what information goes public – a power far beyond that of a mere content platform. Public schools, especially in California, may soon use these biased absurdities as official facts and reasons to trust or distrust someone. (See Newsom’s Section 587.)

Case in point: Jason Fyk’s Section 230 videos. While sharing his views on content manipulation by Meta, Fyk uncovered an apparent complex web of deceptive practices by the social media behemoth. From ‘shadow-banning’ to misinterpretation of facts, Fyk’s videos expose Meta’s actions that definitely raise eyebrows for anyone advocating for transparency and freedom of speech.  In his case, his hundred-million-dollar PLUS company was competing with Meta for paid ad space that he was generating organically.

Meta took down his millions of followers, destroying his online presence. Ultimately, after Fyk transferred the rights to his content to a paying competitor, Meta re-hosted the content, even though it allegedly violated the Meta Terms of Service.

Many of Meta’s advertisement-supported business models rely on user engagement. Hence, meta-algorithms often promote false, divisive, and harmful content to its users. In this case, their entire fact-checker process is clearly deceptive and designed to place many publishers and USERS in a false light.

Meta Is Backdooring

I agree that 230(c)(1) was used as a backdoor for 230(c)(2) cases like Jason Fyk’s. Fyk was just proven correct by Judge Alsup’s recent opinion below, but he still got blown out, and Meta is still free to destroy lives. (in my opinion).

What is False Light Defamation?

False light defamation occurs when someone is portrayed misleadingly or falsely that could be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, even if the information itself is factually accurate. These fact-check labels do just that. Even if the labels were accurate, Meta has become a publisher, and the propriety-GOOD FAITH-of its actions in removing “otherwise objectionable content” must now be decided by a trier of fact under Section 230(c)(2)(A). In other words, META does not get to decide allegations of bad faith, “action voluntarily taken in good faith,” the JURY does!

So, what does this all mean?

It’s time to question:

Is Section 230, a law put forth to protect freedom of speech on online platforms, being weaponized to serve as a tool for misinformation and bias? Your thoughts matter in this debate. Is it high time we called for more accountability from such platforms?

One thing’s for certain: This exploration has only just begun. With a court unimpressed by tautologies and shiny objects, Meta will soon be out of the unfair competition business and back into its role as a social media content provider platform. Their job is not to label and restrict communications using the subterfuge of independent fact-checkers, either.

X/Elon Musk Got it right with Community Notes

X uses “Community Notes” to afford protection under Section 230. Community Notes are harmonious with Section 230(c)(2)(B), which states:

“(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Most people feel that as long as social media sites take censorship actions that favor President Biden and his son and also take actions against his political opponents, only a US court can right these wrongs. Meta is unilaterally TAKING PUBLISHER actions itself and apparently dismissing lawsuits at whim. The revolving door employment scheme it has fostered with DOD, FBI, and even CIA demonstrates a pattern and probable goal of undue influence over policymaking that must be investigated.

Meta is supposed “…to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

In other words, Meta is not supposed to be defaming its political and financial competitors as fake, false, or misleading and then get protected for lying and unfair business practices. It is supposed to allow USERS and information content providers to MUTE or offer a block button (technical means) or a chalkboard to share notes! All it will take is one good judge to put an end to these tautological shenanigans with technology website companies like Meta. Either way, Fyk lost his case, and it could just be his lawyers made the wrong arguments, as did the lawyers in the Stossel case, by stipulating to Meta’s definitions as the rule of the case. Either way, I have no skin in the game, and I DO NOT handle these cases, nor have I ever discussed the case with Fyk’s legal team.

Are you ready to file a lawsuit? Make sure you are ready!

“Thomas Jefferson complained about the verbosity of statutes, their endless tautologies, and “their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaid.” Source LibQuotes

Are you ready for a favorable ruling? Please like, subscribe to, and follow us on the social media platforms that have not banned us yet. We look forward to your communications and discussing any new rules, appeals, or lawsuits on the horizon.

Can Elon Musk Sue Biden’s EEOC for Acting Under Color of Law?

In a recent turn of events, Elon Musk’s Tesla finds itself amidst a controversial lawsuit that alleges the harassment of black employees at one of its assembly plants. However, this article explores why some believe there might be more to this story than meets the eye. Many non-partisan lawyers and retired judges suggest that the Biden administration could retaliate against Musk for his outspoken criticism of their handling of various matters.

Many of us recall that Musk exposed that the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies worked hand in hand with Twitter and even paid them money to bury and conceal accurate and damning investigations and information about the Biden overseas influence peddling operations in Ukraine and China generally. As most of us knew, the Hunter Biden Laptop was real, the data was real, and Biden-appointed officials at the FBI were told it was real all along!

This was all done on the eve of a presidential election, to boot. (Source, Twitter Files.) In other words, it appears Twitter and other social media companies acted under the color of law as “state actors,” violating Title 42, Section 1983 USC. Rather than back off after a court agreed that the Biden Admin has been illegally censoring speech, Biden actually is fighting the court, demanding to continue silencing his opposition. His reasoning is anyone who disagrees with the government, especially Elon Musk, is engaged in “disinformation.”

Can Elon Musk Sue Biden's EEOC for Acting Under Color of Law?

Color of Law?

“Color of law” refers to a legal term used to describe a situation in which an individual or entity, typically a government official or law enforcement officer, acts under the appearance or pretense of law while violating the rights of others. Even though the actions may seem legal on the surface, they are carried out unlawfully and infringe upon the rights and protections guaranteed by the law.

Color of law violations can encompass various forms of misconduct, including unlawful arrests, excessive use of force, false imprisonment, discriminatory practices, and other actions that deprive individuals of their civil rights and liberties under the law. These violations are taken seriously in legal contexts, and those found guilty of acting under the color of law may face criminal charges and civil liability for their actions.

State Actor

We know for a fact that companies like Meta and Twitter were blocking true and damning stories about lies told by the Biden Admin, as well as the TRUE Hunter Biden laptop story. This makes them state actors, subject to civil rights lawsuits by Musk and even people who had their influencer accounts banned (by Biden’s FBI, in essence).

Overwhelming Evidence of Illegal Color of Law

In this case, Biden runs the DOJ, and zero actions have been taken to end this illegal and unlawful action or that of his political ally money donors in Silicon Valley. We know there is an employee revolving door system where Silicon Valley employees go back and forth from the government, giving companies like Blackrock a major advantage in shaping their censorship scheme. No question from a legal point of view based on the Twitter Files and sworn whistleblower testimony the Biden Admin and for-profit media are and have been acting under the color of law to censor and silence political opposition on behalf of the Democrat Party.

Ironically, on the eve of Musk exposing our wide open southern border, the Biden EEOC is now accusing Musk of “racism.” (Sound familiar?) The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court, is backed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It accuses Tesla of allowing significant harassment of Black workers at its flagship assembly plant in Fremont, California, dating back to 2015. Shockingly, the allegations include reports of racist slurs and offensive graffiti, such as Nazi symbols and nooses within the workplace.

Space X Refuses to Hire Illegals, Angering Biden Further

Another issue has been the Biden Admin wanting to hire undocumented or non-citizens for Musk’s space program, which is actually prohibited for Musk to do, according to the majority of legal experts, including the civil rights attorneys at Ehline Law Firm. But that has not stopped the left-wing activists running our current administrative state, according to many business owners and Republicans.

According to the lawsuit, “SpaceX officials said on numerous occasions between 2018 and last year that it could hire only U.S. citizens and green card holders because of restrictive export control laws which govern the use of rocket and missile technology.” (Source WaPo.)

Musk reposted commentary from Alex Tabarrok, a professor of economics at George Mason University, observed: “Do you know who else advertises that only US citizens can apply for a job? The DOJ,” to which Musk quipped, “DOJ needs to sue themselves!” (Source DC Enquirer.)

What adds fuel to the controversy is the EEOC’s claim that Tesla failed to investigate these complaints adequately and took retaliatory actions against employees who dared to report such incidents. Many parents think Newsom and the DOJ are after Musk for his support of parents and opposition to genital mutilation and secret grooming of children by public school teachers suffering from the “woke mind virus.”

Musk agrees with most scientists that men dressing up like women is a mental illness and not something people, especially public school teachers, should affirm in SECRET from parents. That does not sit well with Teachers Union physicians and politicians who stand to make a lot of tax-funded cash off of this new condition that so many children now seem to have been diagnosed with since Biden took office.

Pundits Argue New Transgender Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC Head Hates Musk

Ironically, transgender activist Kalpana Kotagal is now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission commissioner. The decision was criticized by parents and senators as Kotagal, like the democrat party in general, is forcing employers to adopt an asexual or transsexual stance. Senators were very suspicious of Kalpana Kotagal’s history of supporting radical “transgender views,” and now it appears their fears could have been realized, or even worse.

EEOC’s Transgender Advocacy

The EEOC interprets any discrimination against men, including sexual orientation and gender identity; the Act was enacted by Congress in 1964 and would not be construed this way. The EEOC has touted its support for this interpretation, ultimately endorsed in Bostock v. Clayton County (2018). Yet EEOC’s work on transgender rights goes far beyond that statutory interpretation.

Kotagal’s lawsuit against Musk combines federal charges with existing discrimination claims made by both Newsom (another politician accused of anti-parent, pro-sodomy politics) and a few alleged Tesla employees. This has prompted many former California residents to think Newsom is still angry Tesla fled to Texas. In other words, it appears the Democrats have placed a big target on Musk and his financial empire for refusing to toe the line when it comes to censoring political opponents of the administrative state.

The situation became contentious when settlement talks between Tesla and the EEOC collapsed after the agency raised concerns last year. Commonly, EEOC cases with employers result in settlements, making it relatively unusual for such cases to go to trial. However, in this instance, the EEOC’s lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for an unspecified number of affected Black workers, along with an order compelling Tesla to reform its anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies.

Race Card is Always the Trump Card of the Left?

Many on the right, mainly traditional patriots, argue that identity politics and racial division have been used to keep blacks voting 90% Democrat since LBJ (a racist himself) created our current welfare society. Interestingly, Tesla is currently facing multiple other race discrimination lawsuits, all sharing similar allegations seemingly designed to hurt Musk himself, according to an anonymous statement by a source close to Tesla. These include a class-action lawsuit by Fremont plant workers and a California civil rights agency lawsuit.

Tesla has vehemently contended that the California department’s lawsuit is politically motivated corruption, apparently designed to discriminate against nondemocrats. For example, Musk has suggested that the agency violated state law by filing the suit without proper notification of all claims or an opportunity to settle. Gamesmanship like this has caused many Americans to lose all respect for our justice system, especially since Trump is being prosecuted for things that Democrats have allegedly been doing for decades with zero repercussions.

Tesla has consistently emphasized its commitment to preventing discrimination and treating employee complaints seriously throughout these legal battles. How this complex situation will unfold remains to be seen. Still, some observers can’t help but wonder if there’s more beneath the surface, considering Musk’s history of criticizing the Biden administration’s actions and decisions. As the controversy brews what you pay for Tesla’s stock price went up 2.4 percent, recently reaching $246.38. What the District Court decides could find investors fleeing, however, which is what many think Biden wants.

After all,

“We must punish our enemies (political) and reward our friends” – Barack Hussein Obama

So If Retaliation Is Proven, Can Musk Sue the Biden Admin for Acting Under Color of Law?

Yes. According to many legal experts, whether he wins with such a biased administrative state and with so many Obama and Biden-appointed judges is likely a long shot. For Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, etc., to sue the Biden administration or any government entity for acting under the color of law, they must demonstrate that government officials acted in their official capacity.

Next, they must prove these democrat activist bureaucrats violated their rights or engaged in misconduct while appearing to act within the bounds of the law. If the Biden administration or its agencies have engaged in retaliatory actions against Musk or his companies while disguising these actions as lawful, Musk has legal recourse.

To pursue such a lawsuit successfully, several conditions generally need to be met:

  • Violation of Constitutional or Civil Rights: The plaintiff (Musk or his corporations) must show the government’s actions violated their constitutional or civil rights. An unbiased court would easily find this evidence.
  • Official Capacity: The actions of Biden’s administrative state must have been taken by government officials or agencies in their official capacity against Elon Musk or a company he runs.
  • Disguised Misconduct: Musk must prove that the government officials’ actions were deceptive or disguised as lawful when, in fact, they were unlawful or retaliatory.
  • Causation: There should be a direct link between the government’s actions and the harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff. Here, Elon Musk has made it clear that he disagrees with the apparent Bolshevik-like actions of several Biden agencies, particularly the DHS’s refusal to protect our southern border.
  • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Depending on the specific legal context, the plaintiff, Musk, may need to exhaust administrative remedies or follow certain procedures before filing a lawsuit against the government. He may run into statute of limitations (typically six months to make a complaint) problems unless he sues right away.
  • Damages: Musk must demonstrate he or his corporations suffered actual damages due to the government’s actions.

Ultimately, whether Musk can sue the Biden administration successfully for acting under the color of law depends on evidence and legal arguments. Musk needs to swiftly consult with legal counsel experienced in civil rights and government liability issues to assess the merits of any potential lawsuit and determine the appropriate course of action. What do you think? Is this a form of Critical Race Theory (CTR) racial harassment against Musk since he is white?

Is Musk really a racist, or is this just another political assassination by the leftist bureaucracy running this nation? Do you have a comment? Will the District Court stand for Musk and uphold the federal law, or will the administrative state or Northern District punish Musk or a company he runs for discrimination based on national origin? Will the complaint and insults prevail for or against his company or companies? Will Musk be fired as CEO or president of his company network? Do you think the Northern District has been fair with Musk? Put it in the comments.


Detailed Guide on Who Governor Newsom Could Sue and Compensation After Airplane Fall

Did Governor Gavin Newsom bump into an unfortunate incident by falling down the airplane stairs? Is it fake news? Yes, it is phony news. The guy who fell actually fell in 2014? Well, his name is Tuberville.

But this viral, comedic video allowed me to educate people about the non-airplane crash case involving local and international flights. As an aviation accident attorney, I blog extensively about airplane crash cases, so I have extraordinary skills to break this down.

An airplane accident doesn’t always involve a plane in the air. Aviation accidents can even happen on the tarmac and often result in catastrophic injury claims with past and future pain complaints. Are you wondering who he can sue for this mishap and what might be the potential monetary compensation? Maybe you’re curious how the expert attorneys at Ehline Law Firm, renowned for their commitment to justice and compensation, could assist.

Let’s dive deep into these questions together. No, this isn’t April Fools Day at LAX. But Newsom was not the one who slipped and fell down the stairs either, and it was a video from 2014! “That’s not the governor,” according to Erin Mellon, director for Newsom’s communications director, about the video circulating online.

The clip appeared online in early October described as a resurfaced video of Tommy Tuberville in 2014. A longer version of the clip with a wider camera angle can be seen in an Oct. 10 post on messaging platform X, formerly known as Twitter, with the caption: “Old people fall all the time.” Here’s 60 year old Tommy Tuberville falling down some stairs in 2014 before losing to UVA in… wait for it… the Military Bowl.

In any event, now we have a fascinating topic that few lawyers understand, let alone airline pilots or air traffic controllers. Understanding the legal realm can be tricky, but the proper knowledge empowers you to make informed decisions with help from relevant evidence and legal research. This information is crucial not just for Governor Newsom but for anyone who might find themselves in similar circumstances.

Here’s what we’ll cover: 

  1. Who could Governor Newsom sue for falling down the airplane stairs if he had fallen down?
  2. Reasons for suing and the underlying legal principles
  3. How could Ehline Law help?
  4. Potential monetary compensation for such incidents.

This article is tailored to those seeking answers to these questions, with an engaging and informative approach. Let’s start by exploring who could be held responsible for this unfortunate incident that never happened. Now that we’ve set the stage let’s delve into who Governor Newsom can potentially sue if he falls down airplane stairs.

Firstly, it’s possible that the airline could be held responsible. Airlines are responsible for ensuring the safety of their passengers in all situations, so if there was some negligence on their part – such as a failure to maintain the stairs or provide necessary safety precautions – they could be held accountable. 

Airport Management’s Liabilities 

Secondly, airport management may also be on the hook. If the airport failed to oversee or maintain its facilities properly, this could have contributed to the Governor’s fall, and they could be liable. Equipment, including airplane stairs, should be thoroughly checked and maintained for safety. 

Manufacturer’s Fault 

Additionally, if the stairs were faulty due to a manufacturing error, the manufacturer could be sued for product liability. Companies that produce goods for public use must ensure that their products are safe, and if they fail to do so, they can be found at fault. 

The specific details of the incident would play a significant role in determining who can be sued. If Governor Newsom were to fall down airplane stairs, it would be crucial to conduct a thorough investigation to allocate fault appropriately. 

What About International Flights?

The Montreal Convention is an international treaty. This document establishes specific rules for the international carriage of passengers. It also covers baggage and cargo transport by air. It provides a framework for compensating passengers for injury or death during international flights.

Suppose you or a loved one was a United States resident and involved in an aviation accident during an international flight. In that case, the Montreal Convention may allow you to file a lawsuit in the United States. So even if Newsom fell down a flight of stairs deplaning in Communist China, we may still be able to sue here under the plane ticket’s “forum selection” provision, etc.

If you reside in another country, there are still avenues to pursue legal action. Aviation accidents outside the United States or over the ocean often involve complex jurisdictional issues. Seeking legal advice from an airplane accident attorney with expertise in aviation law and international treaties would be crucial to guiding your situation.

How Ehline Law Can Help 

Ehline Law Firm is adept at navigating complicated laws and regulations to fight for the rights of injury victims. If Governor Newsom were to seek their representation, the law team would rigorously investigate the case details. Michael Ehline would fight to ensure all responsible parties are held accountable. The firm’s proficiency in handling personal injury cases helps provide a pathway to maximum compensation for clients. 

Potential Compensation 

Let’s consider how much money Governor Newsom could receive due to this incident. While it’s hard to put an exact figure without knowing the case’s specifics, settlements in similar lawsuits have ranged from thousands to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the severity of the injury, degree of negligence, and other factors. The Federal Aviation Administration does not decide how much you get. Instead, California negligence principles would typically apply in federal or state court, assuming the forum is the Golden State.

What Bills and Damages Does Compensation Cover?

You’re not just hiring an attorney once you engage with Ehline Law for your personal injury case. No, you are partnering with a team committed to your well-being after suffering severe injuries or wrongful death cases of loved ones aboard. This lawyer knows how to get you medical care on a lien basis and even counseling to help mitigate your emotional distress damages in aviation cases.

Should Governor Newsom or any flight passenger experience an unfortunate fall on the airplane stairs, there’s a range of costs and damages the compensation might include against multiple parties and even some public entities in the California jurisdiction.

Here we outline what could be covered: 

Compensation for Medical Bills: 

If Governor Newsom or any victim needs medical attention after the fall, the at-fault party may be liable for the costs.

This includes immediate:

  • Hospital bills
  • Surgeries
  • Rehabilitation
  • Medication and ongoing care.

Let Ehline’s aviation experts navigate the intricate medical billing system so you worry less about the financial impact and focus more on your health care and recovery for your particular case. If the defendants are found liable, we promise to maximize the monetary damages and benefits families can obtain with our assistance.

Loss of Earnings: 

Accidents can often lead to victims being unable to work temporarily or permanently. Legal pursuit may recover salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, or other lost income. Our duty at Ehline Law is to secure your livelihood amidst such unfortunate incidents. 

Non-Economic Damages: 

These refer to the subjective, non-financial losses due to the accident, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and even damages for any disfigurement or permanent disability. At Ehline Law, we understand these aspects are just as critical and ensure they are factored into your claim for reparation. 

Out-of-Pocket Expenses: 

Often overlooked, out-of-pocket costs, such as transportation to medical appointments, home modifications, or hiring help, can quickly add up. It would help if you didn’t have to bear these costs alone. Trust Ehline Law to account for every penny disturbed by the accident. 

Punitive Damages: 

In certain circumstances, if the party at fault acted with gross negligence or intentional misconduct, punitive damages may be awarded in addition to actual damages. This acts as a punishment and a deterrent for such behavior in the future. 

In sum, if Governor Newsom were to be injured from falling down airplane stairs, several parties could be held responsible for covering an array of damages. And with the help of a skilled law firm like Ehline Law, he could receive substantial compensation for his injuries.

The Potential Role of Airline Staff 

Don’t forget about the potential role of the airline staff. They’re tasked with ensuring the safety of passengers while boarding and disembarking. If Governor Newsom’s accident was due to negligence, like failing to install the stairway correctly or not aiding a passenger in need, they could be held responsible. In this situation, the airline company could be sued for negligence with the help of a competent attorney like those found at Ehline Law. 

Faulty Infrastructure or Poor Maintenance 

If the stairway was faulty or poorly maintained, there could be a case against the maintenance company or the airport authority. If a fault in the design led to an unsafe condition or the routine inspection didn’t catch a hazard, these entities could be held liable. With skilled attorneys like those at Ehline Law representing him, Governor Newsom would have a strong chance of receiving just compensation. 

Other Passengers’ Actions 

At times, the fault may also lie with other passengers. If someone accidentally pushed Governor Newsom and caused his fall, that individual could be sued for personal injury. Again, having skilled legal representation like Ehline Law would be crucial in proving such claims and potentially acquiring a significant damage award. 

Weather Conditions & Natural Disasters 

Lastly, let’s consider that the fall could have been due to extreme weather conditions or unexpected natural disasters, like earthquakes. Under these conditions, determining liability becomes a complex ordeal. In such grey areas, it’s here that competent attorneys like Ehline Law wield their expertise and guide the victim towards maximizing their recovery.

Indeed, understanding how liability applies in instances of weather conditions and natural disasters poses a unique challenge. Under normal circumstances, all aspects of an airplane, including its stairs, are designed considering various weather conditions. However, unexpected atmospheric changes or overwhelming natural phenomena might create a risk that couldn’t have been anticipated or mitigated. 

For example, if Governor Newsom tumbled due to sudden solid winds or an unexpected earthquake, these factors could exempt certain parties from liability. Yet, it doesn’t automatically absolve everyone from the possibility of a lawsuit. 

In extreme weather conditions, if adequate precautions were not in place or passengers were not guided effectively, entities responsible for these actions could be held liable. Let’s say the crew, knowing there were strong winds, failed to assist Governor Newsom while he was descending stairs. Then, this could potentially make them liable. 

Similarly, in the case of a sudden earthquake, building regulations come into the picture. If airplane stairs are not built to withstand local seismic activities per guidelines, the entity responsible for its construction or maintenance could be sued. 

Therefore, even though weather and natural disaster scenarios might seem complicated for establishing liability, skilled attorneys like those at Ehline Law can meticulously analyze the situation. They will review the available evidence, consider applicable regulations, and take other necessary actions to determine potentially liable parties. 


Another thing, since Newsom’s employment is with the State of California, he may also be covered under work comp if he gets injured. Beyond identifying liable parties, Ehline could help employees like Newsom understand the worth of Governor Newsom’s potential claim. This would occur after a thorough evaluation of his physical injuries, mental suffering, loss of income, medical expenses, and other related costs.

So, if you’re dealing with a similar situation, know that a legal expert from Ehline Law could be your strong support and guide. State employees and citizens can contact us 24/7 to discuss your airplane accident or other claims by dialing (213) 596-9642. You can email us with the subject “airplane accident” at to report the aircraft flight number, date, time, and place.


City Bus Crashes into Santa Monica Building – Is Government Liable?

A Santa Monica building Monday, On January 2, 2023, fell victim to a city bus accident involving the Big Blue Bus. According to Big Blue Bus and Santa Monica PD, the crash disrupted the afternoon commute. Passengers were transferred to another bus and taken to their destination. But the bus driver was taken to the hospital, according to more than one wondering witness. Let’s explore the details of the news with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys in Los Angeles.

Big Blue City Bus Crashed into Santa Monica Building, Resulting in Injuries and Property Damage

The Big Blue Bus was on its regular route Monday afternoon when it swerved and crashed into a Santa Monica building at Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue intersection.

The Bus Crashed into a Firestone Tire Business, Big Blue Bus Spokesperson Robert McCall States

Witnesses reported that the bus tried to avoid a collision but swerved into a nearby Firestone tire business. The crash happened at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard and Michigan Avenue. The Big Blue Bus representative said the accident injured the driver, but no passengers required hospitalization.

The bus knocked down a tree and struck a parked vehicle that owned by a Firestone employee. “As soon as I saw it, she hit my boss’s truck,” stated Jesus Hernandez who works at Firestone.

“I thought it was an earthquake. It sounded like something hit very hard.” (Source, Witness, Jesus Hernandez)

Emergency services transported the driver to a nearby hospital for medical treatment while the company arranged a second bus to transfer the congregated riders and take them to their destination.

The store manager Alex Virula said the accident sounded like a massive earthquake. Virula looked outside her store window and saw the big blue bus coming toward the store and smashing into the front door, where it stopped.

Bus Rams into a Tree and Parked Vehicle, Firestone Employees Report

The location where the bus crashed typically has a food truck surrounded by high school students when school is in session. Fortunately, the school was off, and there was no other injury or causality besides the driver. A tree and a vehicle owned by a Firestone employee suffered damage.

According to law enforcement, the investigation is underway, and currently, there is no official statement on how the accident occurred.

Who Is Liable for the Big Blue Bus Santa Monica Building Crash?

In the “city bus crashes into Santa Monica building” incident, there is not much information available on the cause of the accident to create a liability and damages article. There needs to be a proper investigation to determine why the bus was about to collide with another vehicle.

Was the other car breaking the traffic rules, or was the bus driver driving too fast and did not have the sufficient braking distance to stop? An investigation can help identify the liable party and how the bus ended up swerving.

Could it be the driver of the bus was trying to avoid a jaywalker and avoid a crash? Suppose the bus driver was liable for the accident. In that case, the Firestone tire business owner and the employee who suffered vehicle damage can pursue property damages against the government.

In the news, there are more stories about public transportation accidents than before, raising fear among the residents. The government is on notice, and it must properly investigate such swerving bus accidents and take corrective measures to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.

Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law

If you suffered injuries in a public transportation accident involving a bus swerving into a nearby car, pedestrian, or building, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may be eligible for compensation to pay for your pain, and suffering, lost wages and more.

Arnold Schwarzenegger Terminates Prius With SUV?

January 21, 2022 – According to our source at the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Arnold Schwarzenegger was involved in a car accident that he was at fault for when his GMC Yukon SUV caused a car crash with multiple vehicles in Brentwood, California this Friday afternoon.

Woman Injured

One woman whose Prius was struck sustained injuries, bleeding heavily from the head, according to the police. So it was likely a low-speed, minor traffic collision.

LAPD Report

The Los Angeles Police related that four cars ultimately became embroiled in the accident around 4:15 p.m. near the vicinity of Sunset Boulevard and Allenford Avenue after Arnold tried to make a U-turn.

The LAPD related that the Terminator began to go on a red left-turn arrow that was definitely not a green light. No traffic citation was issued to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Eyewitness Statements

According to an eyewitness, Arnold’s SUV literally drove onto the roof of a Toyota Prius and went on to strike a Porsche Cayenne. One witness proclaimed it was “crazy … it looked like a stunt in a movie,” according to TMZ, causing Arnold’s airbags to deploy on his Yukon. The bloodied woman operating the Prius went to the hospital.

Arnold is Safe

Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared to be alright, and he expressed sympathy for the victims and was very worried for the injured woman, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. Jake Steinfeld, actor and fitness coach star of “Body By Jake” allegedly was at the location where the crash occurred, approximately a mile from his residence.


We are unsure if Jake was in the car Arnold Schwarzenegger was driving. Do you have any information about the Arnold Schwarzenegger-involved car accident? Let us know your take on the four-vehicle traffic collision and updates about the wounded female driver or any other person injured by the GMC Yukon SUV.