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
© 2024 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 AllAn AI Danger to Minors: Two Texas Families Want to Shut Down Character.AI
4 minute readTexas Bitcoin Mining Execs Sued for Alleged ‘Deception and Brazen Self-Dealing’
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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