The Times also reported that "Nunes' legal theory is unique and charges by curating its content aggressively and banning certain users over the content of their speech, Twitter is not a conduit, but is instead a media outlet with an editorial point-of-view", eventhough federal law exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability
"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes wrote in the suit.
"Twitter did nothing to investigate or review the defamation that appeared in plain view on its platform. Twitter consciously allowed the defamation of Nunes to continue. As part of its agenda to squelch Nunes' voice, cause him extreme pain and suffering, influence the 2018 Congressional election, and distract, intimidate and interfere with Nunes' investigation into corruption and Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election, Twitter did absolutely nothing," Nunes' attorneys wrote.
"The shadow-banning was intentional. It was calculated to interfere with and influence the federal election and interfere with Nunes' ongoing investigation as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Twitter's actions affected the election results," the lawsuit continued. The combination of the shadow-ban and Twitter's refusal to enforce its Terms and Rules in the face of clear and present abuse and hateful conduct caused Nunes to lose support amongst voters."