Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives in federal court in San Jose, California on December 20, 2022.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

House Judiciary Committee will be voted on Thursday on whether to cite Target CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress for failing to provide adequate documents in connection with an earlier subpoena as part of the panel’s online censorship investigation.

Meta and Zuckerberg “deliberately refused to fully comply with a congressional subpoena” seeking documents about the company’s communications with the Biden administration and its content moderation decisions, the committee said in its report of contempt. The committee described the Met’s compliance with the subpoena as “woefully inadequate”.

If the committee votes To quote Zuckerberg in contempt, the resolution would have to pass the House. A criminal contempt case, the committee suggests, could be referred to the Justice Department, which could decide whether to take the case.

The initial subpoena was part of the investigation Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Microsoftalong with Meta to “understand how and to what extent the Executive Branch has enforced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech,” Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote when in February he issued an order to hand over the documents.

Jordan has since extended the inquiry to Meta to include its new Twitter competitor Threads. Jordan wrote that he considered the content moderation documents about Threads to be the subject of an earlier subpoena.

“Although Meta responded directly to the committee’s subpoena, it failed to produce nearly all relevant internal company documents,” the contempt report said. “To date, the Meta has produced only documents between the Meta and external entities and a small subset of relevant internal documents. In particular, the Committee needs internal Meta documents that would clarify how the Meta understood, evaluated, and responded to requests or directives from the executive branch to censor content, as well as the Meta’s decision-making process to censor opinions in the modern square.”

Meta spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement that the Meta had “acted in good faith” with the committee’s broad requests.

“To date, we have provided over 53,000 pages of documents — internal and external — and made nearly a dozen current and former employees available to discuss external and internal matters, including some scheduled this week,” Stone wrote. “Meta will continue to comply, as it has done, with the Committee’s requests in good faith.”

But the contempt report claims that since the Feb. 15 subpoena was issued, “Meta has produced communications between Meta and outside entities and less than 40 pages of internal documents. Despite clear instructions in the committee subpoena and repeated requests by committee staff, Meta has so far failed to produce nearly all of the requested internal communications related to executive branch interactions.”

“The committee negotiated extensively and offered significant measures to try to reach an agreement,” the report continued, but Meta rejected those proposals and “offered a paltry production of internal documents on July 24.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: The messy business of content moderation on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

Source Link