Meta Platforms Inc. has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit filed by former President Donald Trump over the suspension of his social media accounts following the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The settlement is the latest example of a major corporation resolving legal disputes with Trump, who has frequently threatened retribution against his critics. This move comes as Meta and other large tech companies seek to improve relations with the Trump administration. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that $22 million of the settlement will go to a nonprofit organization that will support Trump’s future presidential library. The remaining funds will cover legal fees and other costs.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with Trump in November at Trump’s private Florida club in an effort to mend fences. During the meeting, Trump raised the issue of the lawsuit, which led to two months of negotiations. Meta also donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee, and Zuckerberg attended Trump’s swearing-in ceremony alongside other tech executives.
Before Trump’s inauguration, Meta announced it would stop fact-checking content on its platform, a move that had been a priority for Trump and his supporters. Trump filed the lawsuit months after his first term ended, accusing social media companies of “illegal, shameful censorship of the American people.”
Under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, social media platforms are allowed to moderate content that violates their terms of service. However, Trump and some politicians argue that platforms like Facebook and Twitter have abused this protection and should lose their immunity.
The Meta settlement follows a similar agreement by ABC News last month, which paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit over an inaccurate on-air statement by anchor George Stephanopoulos. Trump has also filed lawsuits against CBS News and The Des Moines Register, alleging unfair coverage and election interference, though both cases have been denied by the defendants.
Read more: