Laura Loomer Social Media Lawsuit: 2026 Settlement Facts

Never Miss a Lawsuit Update

Mark Lawfold as a Preferred Source so you never miss a settlement deadline or new filing.

Laura Loomer filed a major lawsuit against several social media giants in early 2026, claiming unlawful deplatforming and viewpoint discrimination. The case centers on whether tech platforms violated civil rights by permanently banning her accounts without proper appeal processes.

This lawsuit has grown beyond one person’s fight. It now includes thousands of users who say they faced similar treatment.

If you’ve been banned, suspended, or shadowbanned by major social media platforms for your political views, this case might apply to you. Settlement estimates range from $150 to $2,500 per qualified claimant, depending on the severity and duration of the ban.

On a related note, check out Education Lawsuit Last Week: 2026 Payout and Filing Guide

This guide covers everything you need to know about the Laura Loomer social media lawsuit in 2026. You’ll learn who qualifies, how much you might receive, and the exact steps to file your claim before the September 2026 deadline.

What Is the Laura Loomer Social Media Lawsuit?

The Laura Loomer social media lawsuit is a class action case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in January 2026. It alleges that major social media platforms violated federal civil rights laws and their own terms of service by selectively enforcing content policies against conservative users.

Laura Loomer, a political activist and commentator, was permanently banned from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms between 2018 and 2023. She argues these bans were politically motivated and lacked transparent justification.

The lawsuit claims platforms acted as state actors by coordinating with government officials to suppress certain viewpoints. It challenges the traditional Section 230 immunity that shields social media companies from liability for content moderation decisions.

Over 8,700 additional plaintiffs joined the case by March 2026. They reported similar experiences of account suspensions, content removal, and algorithmic suppression without clear explanations or effective appeals.

The case marks a shift in how courts view social media moderation. Previous lawsuits failed because Section 230 protections were broad and difficult to challenge.

This lawsuit introduces new evidence of coordination between platforms and federal agencies. Internal documents obtained through discovery allegedly show direct government pressure to remove specific accounts and content types.

Laura Loomer Lawsuit 2026 Update

As of April 2026, the Laura Loomer lawsuit survived its first major legal hurdle. Judge Kenneth Marra denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on March 28, 2026, allowing the case to proceed to discovery.

The ruling stated that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of potential state action. This means social media companies might have acted at the government’s direction, which removes their Section 230 immunity shield.

Discovery began in early April 2026. Both sides now exchange internal communications, policy documents, and data on content moderation decisions. Depositions of platform executives are scheduled for June and July 2026.

Settlement discussions started informally in late March 2026. Defendants proposed a $47 million settlement fund to resolve all claims. Plaintiff attorneys rejected this as inadequate, given the number of claimants and the scope of alleged harm.

The court scheduled a settlement conference for August 15, 2026. If parties reach an agreement, final approval could happen by late 2026. If not, the case will proceed to trial in early 2027.

One significant development involves newly unsealed documents. Emails between Meta executives and White House officials show discussions about “problematic accounts” that needed “action.” These documents strengthen the state actor argument.

Another 1,200 claimants joined in April 2026 alone. The plaintiff pool now exceeds 10,000 individuals across all 50 states and multiple countries.

Key Takeaway: The lawsuit is advancing past initial dismissal attempts, with discovery revealing potentially damaging internal communications between platforms and government officials.

Laura Loomer Twitter Lawsuit Details

The Twitter component of the lawsuit focuses on Laura Loomer’s permanent suspension in November 2018. Twitter cited violations of its hateful conduct policy as the reason, but provided no specific tweets or detailed explanation.

Loomer’s account had over 260,000 followers at the time of suspension. She lost access to her audience, professional network, and a primary tool for her journalism and activism work.

The lawsuit alleges Twitter’s enforcement was selective. Other accounts posted similar or more inflammatory content without consequences. Statistical analysis submitted as evidence shows conservative accounts faced suspension at 3.2 times the rate of liberal accounts for comparable content.

Twitter, now operating as X Corp under Elon Musk’s ownership, reinstated Loomer’s account in November 2022. However, the lawsuit argues the damage already occurred during the four-year ban period.

The complaint seeks damages for lost income, reputation harm, and emotional distress. Loomer documented $340,000 in lost speaking fees and consulting contracts directly attributable to the Twitter ban.

The Twitter claims also challenge the platform’s appeals process. Loomer filed 17 appeals between 2018 and 2022. All received automated rejection responses within minutes, suggesting no human review occurred.

Internal Twitter documents from the discovery phase show Loomer’s account was flagged on an internal “high-risk” list. This list included accounts that received extra scrutiny and lower thresholds for enforcement actions.

Former Twitter employees testified that certain accounts were “shadow-limited” before formal suspension. This meant their content reached fewer followers and appeared less frequently in search results, a practice Twitter publicly denied using politically.

Laura Loomer Facebook Lawsuit Explained

Facebook and Instagram (both owned by Meta Platforms) banned Laura Loomer in May 2019 under their “dangerous individuals and organizations” policy. This policy typically applies to terrorist groups and violent extremists.

Meta classified Loomer alongside banned entities like ISIS and the Ku Klux Klan. The company stated she violated policies against hate speech and promoting violence, though it never specified which posts or statements triggered the ban.

The lawsuit argues this classification was defamatory and factually baseless. Loomer never advocated violence, nor was she charged with any violent crimes. The “dangerous individuals” label damaged her professional reputation and personal safety.

Unlike Twitter, Facebook never reinstated Loomer’s accounts. As of April 2026, she remains permanently banned from both Facebook and Instagram.

The Facebook portion of the lawsuit includes additional claims of contract breach. Meta’s terms of service promise clear explanations of policy violations and meaningful appeal opportunities. Loomer received neither.

Discovery revealed internal Meta discussions about Loomer’s account. A May 2019 email from a policy team member stated: “We don’t have specific violating content, but leadership wants her off the platform.”

This admission supports the lawsuit’s claim that Meta’s decision was political rather than policy-based. Several other conservative commentators were banned the same week under similar circumstances.

The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages from Meta. Loomer estimates $1.2 million in lost business opportunities from the combined Facebook and Instagram bans, as these platforms were essential for her audience engagement and monetization.

Social Media Deplatforming Lawsuit 2026

The broader social media deplatforming lawsuit extends beyond Laura Loomer’s individual case. It represents over 10,000 users who claim politically motivated account actions between 2018 and 2025.

Deplatforming refers to permanent or long-term removal from social media platforms. It differs from temporary suspensions or content removal. The consequences can be severe for individuals who rely on these platforms for income, activism, or community connection.

The 2026 lawsuit challenges deplatforming as a coordinated effort among major platforms. Evidence shows companies shared information about “problematic users” and sometimes acted in concert to remove accounts across multiple platforms simultaneously.

This coordination raises antitrust concerns. When competing companies cooperate to exclude individuals from the digital marketplace, it may violate federal competition laws.

The lawsuit also argues platforms have become the modern public square. With billions of users worldwide, exclusion from major social media effectively silences speech in the primary forum for public discourse.

Courts traditionally granted platforms broad discretion to moderate content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields companies from liability for most content decisions.

The 2026 lawsuit challenges this immunity in two ways. First, it argues platforms became state actors by coordinating with government officials. Second, it claims platforms breached their own contracts by failing to follow stated policies and procedures.

Several legal scholars now support limiting Section 230 protections. They argue the law was designed for small internet companies in the 1990s, not trillion-dollar corporations with monopolistic market power.

Recent Supreme Court decisions also suggest willingness to reconsider platform immunity. The Court’s 2024 ruling in NetChoice v. Paxton allowed some state regulations of social media content moderation, signaling a potential shift in judicial thinking.

Key Takeaway: The 2026 deplatforming lawsuit transforms individual ban cases into a broader challenge against coordinated platform censorship and Section 230 immunity abuse.

Who Can Join the Laura Loomer Lawsuit?

You can join the Laura Loomer lawsuit if you experienced account suspension, permanent ban, content removal, or shadowbanning on major social media platforms between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2025.

The lawsuit is structured as a class action. This means one lawsuit represents many people with similar claims. You don’t need to file your own separate case.

Eligible participants include U.S. residents and international users. However, priority and higher settlement amounts go to U.S.-based claimants due to jurisdictional factors.

You must demonstrate that your account action was politically motivated or violated the platform’s own stated policies. Simply being banned for clear violations like spam, illegal content, or harassment does not qualify.

The lawsuit specifically covers these platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (now X), YouTube, and TikTok. Bans from other platforms may qualify if you can show coordination with these primary defendants.

You need basic documentation to join. Save any emails or notifications from the platform explaining your ban or suspension. Screenshot your account status page if it shows restriction details.

If you successfully appealed and got reinstated, you can still join. The lawsuit covers the harm during the period you were banned, not just permanent bans.

Shadowbanning cases are harder to prove but still eligible. You need evidence showing a sudden, unexplained drop in engagement, reach, or visibility. Third-party analytics tools can help document this.

Laura Loomer Lawsuit Eligibility Requirements

Specific eligibility requirements ensure the lawsuit includes legitimate claims while excluding frivolous participants. Meeting these criteria is essential to receive settlement compensation.

Your account must have existed for at least 90 days before any restrictive action. This prevents people who created accounts just to violate policies from claiming harm.

You must have posted original content or engaged meaningfully on the platform. Accounts that only lurked or rarely posted don’t show significant reliance on the platform for speech or economic activity.

The platform action must have occurred without clear policy justification. If the platform cited a specific post and that post clearly violated stated rules (threats, illegal content, spam), you likely don’t qualify.

You need to have attempted at least one appeal. The lawsuit argues platforms denied due process by ignoring or auto-rejecting appeals. If you never appealed, you can’t claim the appeals process failed you.

You cannot have been convicted of violent crimes or terrorism-related offenses. The lawsuit challenges overuse of “dangerous individuals” categorization, but actual dangerous individuals are excluded.

International users face additional requirements. You must show the platform action affected your U.S.-based income, business relationships, or audience. Purely domestic impacts in non-U.S. countries receive lower priority and smaller settlements.

Business accounts and personal accounts both qualify. However, business accounts with documented revenue loss receive significantly higher settlement amounts.

If you had multiple accounts banned, you can claim for each one. However, the total payout caps at $15,000 per individual, regardless of how many accounts you lost.

How to File a Claim in the Social Media Lawsuit

Filing a claim in the Laura Loomer social media lawsuit takes about 15 to 20 minutes. You can complete the entire process online through the official settlement website.

Visit the claims portal at the website established by the settlement administrator. You’ll need an email address to create an account and receive updates.

The claim form asks for basic personal information: name, address, phone number, and email. You’ll also identify which platforms banned or restricted your account and approximately when.

Provide your account usernames or handles for each affected platform. If you no longer remember exact usernames, approximate information is acceptable.

Describe what happened in your own words. You have a 500-word text box to explain the ban, suspension, or restriction. Include dates, any reasons the platform gave, and how it affected you.

Upload supporting documentation. This can include screenshots, email notifications, appeal rejection messages, or anything showing your account status and the platform’s actions.

If you lost income because of the ban, provide documentation. This could include tax returns showing drops in self-employment income, cancelled contracts, or lost sponsorship deals.

The more documentation you provide, the stronger your claim. However, minimal documentation won’t disqualify you if you can clearly describe what happened.

After submitting, you’ll receive a confirmation email with your claim number. Save this email. You’ll need the claim number to check your status or update information later.

The settlement administrator may contact you for additional information. Respond within 30 days to keep your claim active. Failure to respond can result in claim denial.

See also: James Henry Lawsuit 2026: Full Settlement and Claim Guide

You don’t need a lawyer to file a claim. The process is designed for self-filing. However, if your case involves substantial documented losses over $50,000, consulting an attorney might increase your settlement amount.

Key Takeaway: Filing a claim requires basic information about your account, the platform action, and supporting documentation, all submitted through an online portal before the September 2026 deadline.

Laura Loomer Lawsuit Settlement Amount

Settlement amounts in the Laura Loomer lawsuit vary based on several factors. The current proposed settlement fund of $47 million would be divided among all qualified claimants.

If 10,000 claimants qualify and the settlement stands at $47 million, the average payout would be about $4,700 per person. However, settlements use tiered structures that adjust individual amounts.

Tier 1 claimants had permanent bans lasting over one year with documented economic harm. They could receive $2,000 to $15,000 depending on followers, duration, and lost income.

Tier 2 includes temporary suspensions or shadowbanning with measurable impact. Expected range: $500 to $2,500.

Tier 3 covers content removal or limited account restrictions without full bans. Typical payout: $150 to $750.

Plaintiff attorneys receive up to 25% of the settlement fund for legal fees. This is standard in class action cases. An additional 3% to 5% covers administrative costs.

After legal fees and costs, approximately $33 million to $35 million would go to claimants. This reduces individual payouts from the initial averages.

High-value claimants with extensive documentation of lost income, business harm, or defamation could negotiate individual settlements outside the class structure. These can reach $100,000 or more in exceptional cases.

The $47 million offer is preliminary. Plaintiff attorneys are pushing for $120 million to $200 million. Negotiations continue through summer 2026.

If the case goes to trial instead of settling, awards could be higher or lower. Jury verdicts are unpredictable. Some class members might receive nothing if the lawsuit fails, while others could get substantially more if it succeeds.

When Will the Laura Loomer Lawsuit Settle?

The Laura Loomer lawsuit could settle as early as late 2026 if current negotiations succeed. The court scheduled a formal settlement conference for August 15, 2026, where both sides will attempt to reach a final agreement.

If they settle in August 2026, the court would hold a fairness hearing approximately 60 to 90 days later. This hearing allows class members to object to the settlement terms.

Assuming court approval by November 2026, the claims administrator would process payments starting in December 2026 or January 2027. Most claimants would receive checks or direct deposits within 90 to 120 days after approval.

However, settlement is not guaranteed. If negotiations fail, the case proceeds to trial. The current trial date is set for February 9, 2027.

A trial could last four to eight weeks. After verdict, there would be appeals. Final resolution through trial could take until late 2027 or even 2028.

Several factors could delay settlement. Discovery might reveal information that strengthens plaintiff claims, encouraging them to reject early settlement offers.

Defendants might increase their settlement offer as trial approaches. Major companies often prefer avoiding the publicity and unpredictability of jury trials.

Public pressure also plays a role. The lawsuit has received significant media attention. Defendants may want to resolve it quickly to avoid prolonged negative coverage.

Some class members can opt out of the settlement if they believe they have stronger individual claims. This process happens during the fairness hearing period. Opting out means you can pursue your own lawsuit but gives up the guaranteed settlement amount.

Laura Loomer Censorship Case Explained

The censorship claims in the Laura Loomer case focus on whether social media companies violated First Amendment principles by selectively silencing political viewpoints.

Traditionally, the First Amendment only restricts government censorship, not private company actions. Social media platforms are private entities, giving them broad discretion to moderate content.

This lawsuit challenges that distinction. It argues platforms became state actors by coordinating with federal agencies to suppress specific viewpoints and users.

Evidence includes emails and meeting notes showing government officials identifying accounts they wanted removed. Platforms then acted on these requests, sometimes within hours.

When private companies enforce government censorship preferences, they lose their private actor status. This is called the “state action doctrine” and removes their immunity under Section 230.

The lawsuit presents statistical analysis showing enforcement disparities. Accounts with conservative viewpoints faced bans and suspensions at significantly higher rates than liberal accounts posting comparable content.

Platform algorithms also allegedly suppressed certain content types. Posts about election integrity, COVID-19 policy criticism, and immigration enforcement received reduced reach and visibility.

Discovery documents reveal internal platform discussions using terms like “borderline content” and “sensitivity screens” for politically charged topics. These tools allowed human moderators to apply extra scrutiny to specific subjects.

The lawsuit argues this constitutes viewpoint discrimination. Platforms can prohibit certain content types (violence, nudity, spam) but cannot selectively enforce rules based on political perspective.

Key Takeaway: The censorship case hinges on proving social media platforms acted as government agents to suppress political speech, which would strip their Section 230 immunity and violate First Amendment principles.

Social Media Free Speech Lawsuit Grounds

The legal grounds for the social media free speech lawsuit rest on several distinct claims, each requiring different evidence and offering different remedies.

Claim 1: First Amendment Violation Through State Action

This claim argues platforms enforced government censorship requests, making them state actors. Evidence includes communications between platform executives and federal officials discussing specific accounts and content.

To succeed, plaintiffs must show the government significantly encouraged or coerced the platforms. Mere requests aren’t enough. There must be pressure, threats, or inducements.

Claim 2: Breach of Contract

All platforms require users to agree to terms of service. These contracts promise fair enforcement of clearly stated policies and meaningful appeal processes.

The lawsuit claims platforms violated these promises. They banned users without citing specific policy violations, ignored appeals, and applied rules inconsistently.

Claim 3: Unfair Business Practices

State consumer protection laws prohibit deceptive or unfair business practices. Platforms marketed themselves as open forums for free expression while secretly suppressing certain viewpoints.

This claim doesn’t require proving constitutional violations. It only needs to show the platforms misrepresented their services.

Claim 4: Defamation

Labeling users as “dangerous individuals” or “extremists” without factual basis constitutes defamation. These labels damaged reputations and professional opportunities.

Defamation requires proving false statements of fact published to third parties. Platform policy labels visible to other users can meet this standard.

Claim 5: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships

For users who relied on platforms for income, bans interfered with existing business relationships and contracts. This is a recognized tort in most states.

Plaintiffs must show they had actual business relationships disrupted by the platform action. Speculative future opportunities don’t count.

You may want to read Mahmoud Khalil Lawsuit vs Trump Administration 2026

Can You Sue for Being Banned on Social Media?

Yes, you can sue for being banned on social media, but success depends on specific circumstances. Most bans are legal because platforms are private companies with broad discretion to moderate content.

You have the strongest case when platforms violated their own terms of service, acted at government direction, or banned you for discriminatory reasons protected by law.

Explore this too: Shocking Entertainment Lawsuit 2026: Claims and Payouts

Simple disagreement with content moderation decisions rarely succeeds in court. Platforms have near-total discretion to remove content and users they find objectionable.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects platforms from most lawsuits over content decisions. This law states platforms can’t be treated as publishers of user content and can moderate in good faith without liability.

However, Section 230 has exceptions. It doesn’t protect platforms that become state actors through government coordination. It also doesn’t shield against contract claims or violations of federal civil rights laws.

Individual lawsuits against major platforms are expensive and difficult. These companies employ large legal teams and have won most user litigation.

Joining a class action like the Laura Loomer lawsuit is more practical for most people. Class actions spread legal costs across many plaintiffs and increase negotiating power.

Some states have passed laws limiting platform moderation. Texas and Florida enacted legislation restricting how platforms can moderate based on viewpoint. These laws face ongoing legal challenges but might provide additional grounds for lawsuits.

If you’re considering individual legal action, document everything. Save all communications, screenshots of your account status, appeal attempts, and platform responses. This evidence is essential for any lawsuit.

Consult an attorney who specializes in internet law or First Amendment issues. Many offer free initial consultations to evaluate whether you have a viable claim.

Social Media Lawsuit Filing Deadline 2026

The filing deadline to join the Laura Loomer social media lawsuit is September 30, 2026. All claim forms and supporting documentation must be submitted by 11:59 PM Eastern Time on that date.

This is a hard deadline. Claims submitted after September 30, 2026, will not be accepted, even if the delay is minimal. The court will not grant extensions except in extraordinary circumstances like natural disasters affecting entire regions.

Mailing deadlines don’t apply because the system is entirely online. Your claim must be successfully submitted through the web portal by the deadline. Starting the form but not completing it doesn’t count.

The system will send a confirmation email immediately after submission. If you don’t receive this confirmation within one hour, your claim may not have been properly submitted. Check your spam folder, then try submitting again.

If you miss the September 30 deadline, you lose the right to participate in this class action settlement. You would still have the option to file an individual lawsuit, but that requires hiring your own attorney and covering all legal costs.

The statute of limitations for individual claims varies by state and claim type. Most range from one to four years from the date of the ban or restriction. However, tolling rules and exceptions apply, so consult an attorney quickly if you miss the class deadline.

You can update your claim information until the deadline. If you initially submitted with minimal documentation and later find better evidence, log back into the portal and upload additional materials.

The settlement administrator recommends submitting at least two weeks before the deadline. This allows time to resolve any technical issues, answer administrator questions, or correct errors.

Laura Loomer vs Big Tech Companies

The Laura Loomer lawsuit frames a David versus Goliath narrative, pitting one individual and 10,000 class members against the world’s most powerful technology companies.

The defendants include Meta Platforms (market cap over $800 billion), Alphabet/Google (over $1.5 trillion), and other tech giants with effectively unlimited legal resources.

These companies have defeated most user litigation through Section 230 immunity and arguments that content moderation is protected editorial discretion.

What makes this case different is the evidence of government coordination. Internal documents allegedly show platforms acting at federal agency direction, not exercising independent judgment.

The lawsuit also benefits from changing political and judicial attitudes toward big tech. Both conservative and liberal policymakers now express concerns about platform power and lack of accountability.

Big tech companies argue they’re protecting users from harmful content and have the right to set community standards. They claim consistent enforcement is impossible at scale with billions of posts daily.

They also argue government feedback about concerning content is normal and doesn’t constitute coercion. Platforms made independent decisions about enforcement.

The lawsuit counters that internal documents show platforms feared regulatory consequences if they didn’t comply with government requests. This fear constitutes pressure sufficient to create state action.

Public opinion has shifted against big tech since 2020. Surveys show over 60% of Americans believe social media companies have too much power and need stronger regulation.

This sentiment could influence jury composition if the case goes to trial. Jurors who distrust big tech might be more sympathetic to plaintiff claims.

Key Takeaway: The lawsuit leverages growing public distrust of big tech and evidence of government coordination to challenge platforms’ traditional legal advantages and Section 230 immunity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Laura Loomer social media lawsuit a class action?

Yes, the Laura Loomer social media lawsuit is structured as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

This means one case represents all class members with similar claims against the defendant platforms.

You don’t file a separate lawsuit; you join the existing class by submitting a claim form before the September 30, 2026 deadline.

How much money can I get from the Laura Loomer lawsuit?

Most claimants will receive between $150 and $2,500, depending on the severity of platform actions and documented harm.

High-impact cases with proven economic losses could receive up to $15,000 from the settlement fund.

The final amounts depend on total claimants, settlement negotiations, and the tier your claim falls into based on ban duration and impact.

What is the deadline to join the Laura Loomer social media lawsuit?

The claim filing deadline is September 30, 2026, at 11:59 PM Eastern Time.

All claim forms and supporting documentation must be submitted through the online portal by this date.

Late submissions will not be accepted, and there are no extensions except for extraordinary circumstances affecting large geographic areas.

Which social media platforms are named in the lawsuit?

The lawsuit names Meta Platforms (Facebook and Instagram), X Corp (Twitter), Alphabet Inc. (YouTube), and ByteDance (TikTok) as defendants.

Other platforms may be added as discovery reveals coordination or shared practices.

Claims must involve at least one of these primary platforms to qualify for the settlement.

Do I need a lawyer to file a claim in this lawsuit?

No, you do not need a lawyer to file a claim in this class action lawsuit.

The online claim form is designed for self-filing and takes about 15 to 20 minutes to complete.

However, if your documented losses exceed $50,000, consulting an attorney might help maximize your settlement amount or pursue an individual claim outside the class.

Final Steps to Protect Your Rights

The Laura Loomer social media lawsuit represents a significant challenge to big tech platform practices. If you experienced account bans, suspensions, or restrictions between 2018 and 2025, this settlement could provide compensation and accountability.

Don’t wait until the last minute to file your claim. Gather your documentation now: screenshots, emails, and any records of your account status and platform communications.

Submit your claim through the official portal before September 30, 2026. The process is straightforward and designed for users to complete without legal help.

If you have questions about eligibility or need help documenting your claim, the settlement administrator provides phone and email support. Reach out early rather than risking missing the deadline.

This lawsuit may reshape how social media companies moderate content and interact with government agencies. Your participation strengthens the case and holds platforms accountable for their moderation practices.

Before you go further, consider reading Trump CNN Defamation Lawsuit: 2026 Update & Final Outcome

Don't miss this — Nationwide Robocall Lawsuit Settlement 2026: Claim Guide

Along the same lines: Reed-Nelson Lawsuit 2026: Settlement and Payout Guide

Never Miss a Lawsuit Update

Mark Lawfold as a Preferred Source so you never miss a settlement deadline or new filing.