Donald Trump has a chance to sue such large corporations as Google, Twitter and Facebook, but the chance is miserable - here, rather, the desire of the former head of the United States to attract the attention of the press and show activity to his voters. Censorship charges and a reference to the First Amendment to the Constitution are weak arguments in the fight against social media blocking. Typically, courts side with plaintiffs, who have been censored by the government rather than private corporations.

Donald Trump's accounts were blocked in January this year, but the reason was not that he left the presidency, but the riots in the Capitol, which occurred after several statements by the former president on social networks. His supporters expressed their opinions rather aggressively and the situation could lead to an increase in the number of victims. Given these circumstances, the court is unlikely to side with Trump. Over the course of the year, Trump has tried to challenge the actions of social media, but none of the attempts have been successful.

In such a case, the court will make a decision based on the arguments of the parties (the Claimant and the Respondent), the evidence presented by the parties, and will also assess the circumstances that served as the basis for blocking the account on social networks.

If a similar situation has occurred to the user - an account on a social network was blocked, first of all, the user should challenge the blocking to the social network itself. Provide arguments against blocking and file a complaint against the actions of the moderators.