Who's to Blame? Facebook Can't Shake Lawsuits Over Alleged Child-Sex Trafficking on Its Platform
These lawsuits are pushing the legal limits of how social media companies can be held accountable for sex trafficking that occurs on their platforms.
April 29, 2020 at 01:36 PM
4 minute read
Facebook has again lost its court battle to dismiss lawsuits by three young women who claimed they were sex trafficked on the Facebook or Instagram platforms.
These lawsuits are pushing the legal limits of how social media companies can be held accountable for sex trafficking that occurs on their platforms.
In a 2-1 ruling Tuesday, the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed two trial judges' orders that denied Facebook's motions to dismiss the lawsuits under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 91a, which is the Lone Star State's version of the federal 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The dissenting justice urged the Texas Supreme Court to take up the cases.
The girls' attorney told Texas Lawyer this is the first time any plaintiffs survived challenges by Facebook under the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that says that interactive computer service providers can't be treated as the publishers or speakers of content on their platforms.
"The Communications Decency Act was never intended to protect big tech companies when they knowingly facilitate unlawful activities," said plaintiffs attorney Annie McAdams, who pledged to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if needed. "We knew when we filed this case it was groundbreaking developments in the law."
Immune or not immune?
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that others sex trafficked them through the Facebook platforms. They claimed that Facebook knows it has a sex trafficking problem but has done nothing to protect children.
Facebook denies the allegations. The company has said that it works with child protection experts, law enforcement and other tech companies to "block and remove exploitative photos and videos, as well as to prevent grooming online." Facebook asks users to report potential human-trafficking content.
Facebook tried arguing that it was immune from the claims under that communications law. The tech giant had argued that being immune meant the plaintiffs, who were teenagers when they alleged the sex trafficking occurred, had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the lawsuits should be tossed from court. The two trial judges presiding over the three teenagers' lawsuits rejected that argument.
The social media company appealed, seeking mandamus relief from the 14th Court. But the two-justice majority denied relief.
"Facebook has not established that it is entitled to mandamus relief," the per curiam majority opinion said.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Tracy Christopher disagreed and wrote that the state's high court should take a look at the cases. The three plaintiffs were asking the 14th Court to interpret the Communications Decency Act in a way that only a few courts have done, she explained, adding that the majority of courts have ruled in favor of Facebook's arguments.
The dissent added that the Communications Decency Act was amended in 2017 to add an exception to immunity. However, she wrote, the exception wouldn't apply in a civil action in a state court.
"Federal law grants Facebook immunity from suits such as these," Christopher wrote. "Because Facebook has immunity, these suits have no basis in law, and dismissal under Texas Rule of Procedure 91a is proper."
Hunton Andrews Kurth partners Scott Brister and Kelly Sandill both declined to comment. No one in the Facebook press office immediately returned an email seeking comment.
Read more: Amid Sex Trafficking Suit, Facebook Ordered to Pause App That Deletes Browsing History
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKirkland & Ellis Taps Former Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Digital Infrastructure Practice
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250