May 04, 2023 |
Appeals Court Partly Reverses, Remands NCOSE-Backed Lawsuit Targeting Twitter |
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. â In a ruling that reversed in part and upheld in part a district courtâs ruling in Doe v. Twitter, a lawsuit backed by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) alleging that the massive social media platform is liable for various sex trafficking offenses, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed two more claims from the suit, while upholding the lower court’s dismissal of another count. In the lawsuit, two John Doe plaintiffs alleged that when they were 13 years-old, they were âsolicited and recruited for sex trafficking and manipulated into providing to a third-party sex trafficker pornographic videos of themselves through the social media platform Snapchat,â as the district court wrote in a summary of the allegations and facts of the case. âA few years later, when Plaintiffs were still in high school, links to the Videos were posted on Twitter,â the courtâs summary continues. âPlaintiffs allege that when they learned of the posts, they informed law enforcement and urgently requested that Twitter remove them but Twitter initially refused to do so, allowing the posts to remain on Twitter, where they accrued more than 167,000 views and 2,223 retweets. According to Plaintiffs, it wasn’t until the mother of one of the boys contacted an agent of the Department of Homeland Security, who initiated contact with Twitter and requested the removal of the material, that Twitter finally took down the posts, nine days later.â The district court issued a mixed ruling on motions to dismiss made by Twitter, dismissing the amended complaintâs first and fourth counts â which allege violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and seek âcivil remedies for personal injuries related to sex trafficking and receipt and distribution of child pornographyâ, respectively â and declining to dismiss the complaintâs second count, which alleges that Twitter is liable for âbenefiting from a sex trafficking ventureâ in violation of the TVPRA. Twitter file an appeal to the district courtâs upholding of the second count, while the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal, urging the appellate court to reverse the dismissal of the other counts. The Ninth Circuitâs ruling issued yesterday reversed the district courtâs upholding of the second count, while affirming the courtâs dismissal of counts one and four. In their ruling, the Ninth Circuit panel noted that in its interlocutory appeal as to the second count of the complaint, âTwitter sought certification of the following two questions: (1) whether the immunity carve-out in Section 230(e)(5)(A) requires that a plaintiff plead a violation of Section 1591; and (2) whether âparticipation in a ventureâ under Section 1591(a)(2) requires that a defendant have a âcontinuous business relationshipâ with the traffickers in the form of business dealings or a monetary relationship.â âWith respect to Count 2, the legal standard applicable to that issue has now been decided by Jane Does 1â6 v. Reddit,â the appellate court wrote. âReddit answered the first certified question in the affirmative: â[F]or a plaintiff to invoke FOSTAâs immunity exception, she must plausibly allege that the websiteâs own conduct violated section 1591.ââ (Internal citations omitted.) The court continued that the Reddit case also âanswered the second question in the negative: âIn a sex trafficking beneficiary suit against a defendant-website, the most important component is the defendant websiteâs own conductâits âparticipation in the ventureâ⦠A complaint against a website that merely alleges trafficking by the websiteâs usersâwithout the participation of the websiteâwould not survive.â The term â[p]articipation in a venture,â in turn, is defined as âknowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitatingâ sex trafficking activitiesâ¦. Accordingly, establishing criminal liability requires that a defendant knowingly benefit from knowingly participating in child sex trafficking.â Reddit therefore requires a more active degree of âparticipation in the ventureâ than a âcontinuous business relationshipâ between a platform and its users. Because these questions certified for interlocutory appeal are controlled by Reddit, the district courtâs contrary holding is reversed.â As for the complaintâs first count, the appellate court found that the district court âcorrectly ruled that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for direct sex trafficking liability under the TVPRA,â noting that the statute âcreates a direct liability claim for â[w]hoever knowingly⦠recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes, or solicits by any means a personââ â and that the plaintiffâs complaint fails to establish that Twitter did any of those things in this case. âBecause Plaintiffs nowhere allege in their complaint that Twitter âprovided,â âobtained,â or âmaintainedâ a person, the district court correctly concluded that Twitterâs alleged conduct relates only to CSAM depicting Plaintiffs, not to their persons (as required to implicate a direct violation of the TVPRA),â the appellate panel wrote. With respect to the lawsuitâs fourth count, the Ninth Circuit panel found the district court had âcorrectly ruled that section 230 precluded Plaintiffs from stating a viable claim for possession and distribution of child pornographyâ against Twitter. âBecause the complaint targets âactivity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online,â such activity âis perforce immune under section 230,ââ the court wrote, citing Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com. In closing its ruling, the appellate court said that while the district courtâs order is âaffirmed as to Counts 1 and 4â, because the lower courtâs ruling regarding the second count is âcontrary to our courtâs Reddit decision,â the district courtâs order is reversed with respect to that count and remanded âfurther proceedings to be conducted in a manner consistent with this courtâs Reddit decision.â You can read the Ninth Circuit’s complete order here. |