Nikko D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

── Nikko D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-2231 NIKKO D’AMBROSIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. META PLATFORMS INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:24-cv-00678 — Sunil R. Harjani, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 2026 — DECIDED MAY 15, 2026 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we affirm dismis- sal of a litany of claims arising from a few social media posts about the plaintiff’s reportedly obnoxious behavior on dates and after a breakup. We also order plaintiff and his attorneys to show cause why they should not face sanctions for frivo- lously appealing the dismissal of his claims against the author of some of those posts (a woman he briefly dated) and her 2 No. 25-2231 parents. Plaintiff failed to offer even colorable grounds for re- versing the claims against those defendants. Moreover, his at- torney submitted a brief with fictitious quotations, citations, and claims that should have been avoided with routine cite- checking. I. Factual and Procedural Background Because we are reviewing a grant of motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we recount the facts as alleged in plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and the attached exhibits. See Thompson v. Illinois Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 2002). “Are We Dating the Same Guy? | Chicago” (“the Group”) is a Facebook group with around one hundred thousand members in which women discuss their experiences dating Chicago-area men. This case arises from several posts made in the Group about plaintiff-appellant Nikko D’Ambrosio, who alleges that defendant Abbigail Rajala, a woman he briefly dated, and over two dozen unidentified users published photographs of him, made defamatory statements, and invaded his privacy. The complaint is not always clear about the precise timing and sequence of the relevant posts, but they occurred in No- vember and December 2023. As described in the complaint and according to the attached exhibits, they amount to the fol- lowing. Ms. Rajala wrote about her unpleasant experience briefly dating D’Ambrosio: We met organically in Chicago two and a half months ago. Very clingy [and] very fast. Flaunted money very awkwardly and kept talk- ing about how I don’t want to see his bad side, No. 25-2231 3 especially when he was on business calls. He came to see me yesterday, and I explained how I didn’t really want to stay the night[.] I just wanted to spend the day together. And this was his response. Her next comment was: After I blocked his number, he texted me on an- other one. Which is the other text screenshot[.] The first message Ms. Rajala referred to is not in the com- plaint, but the second is as follows, with expletives cleaned up for this opinion: Speak for yourself you ugly vial [sic] fake whore. Your ego matches that fake f****** face where you can’t even smile in pictures because your teeth are so f*****. The truth hurts b**** and my message will stay with you forever c***. The manner in which Ms. Rajala took the screenshot did not reveal D’Ambrosio’s alternate phone number or any other identifying information. Despite several opportunities, D’Ambrosio never disputed that he sent this last message un- til oral argument in this appeal. Seve