Doe v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint asserted thirteen claims arising from the alleged presence and distribution on Twitter of pornographic images and videos involving the plaintiffs when they were minors. The claims included federal claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, federal child-sexual-abuse-material reporting and civil-remedy statutes, and several California causes of action.

Before this order, the court had dismissed Claims One and Four for failure to state a claim, and had dismissed Claims Three and Five through Thirteen with prejudice. The only remaining claim was Claim Two, which alleged beneficiary liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(2) and 1595(a). That claim alleged that Twitter knowingly benefited, or should have known that it benefited, from assisting, supporting, or facilitating sex trafficking through its platform.

The court had previously allowed Claim Two to proceed under its then-understanding of the applicable law. During the interlocutory appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit decided Does 1-6 v. Reddit, Inc. The Ninth Circuit held that the exemption from Communications Decency Act § 230 immunity under the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act requires a plaintiff to plausibly allege that the website’s own conduct violated the federal sex-trafficking statute. It also held that participation in a trafficking venture requires a more active form of participation than a continuous business relationship between a platform and its users.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier ruling on Claim Two and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Reddit. It had affirmed the dismissal of Claims One and Four.

Parties’ Positions

Twitter argued that the allegations in this case matched those in Reddit. According to Twitter, the plaintiffs alleged that the platform did not adequately police unlawful content, that the content generated advertising revenue, and that Twitter allowed the material to remain after it was reported.

The plaintiffs argued that Reddit did not control because this case allegedly involved Twitter’s actual knowledge that the material depicted minors, knowledge that the material resulted from sex trafficking, and an affirmative decision not to remove or report it. They also argued that Claim Two was not barred by § 230 because it did not treat Twitter as a publisher or speaker.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. The court explained that, at this stage, it accepts material factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the plaintiff, but a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible under a valid legal theory.

The court held that the FOSTA exception to § 230 immunity did not apply under the standard established in Reddit. The plaintiffs alleged that Twitter had general knowledge that child sexual abuse material appeared on its platform and specific knowledge that material depicting the plaintiffs was posted and shared there. They also alleged that Twitter sometimes refused or failed to remove the material after receiving notice.

The court concluded that these allegations were essentially the same as those found insufficient in Reddit. Under that decision, allegations that a website knew about unlawful content, benefited from user traffic or advertising, and failed to remove content showed, at most, that the website turned a blind eye. They did not show the website’s active participation in sex trafficking or a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(2), which was required for the FOSTA exception in this context.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the claim avoided § 230 because it did not treat Twitter as a publisher. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit had already held that activity involving decisions about whether to exclude material posted by third parties is protected under § 230.

Disposition

The court found that the beneficiary-liability claim failed under Reddit and that the plaintiffs had not identified a way to fix the claim through amendment. It granted Twitter’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the remaining claim with prejudice and without leave to amend, instructed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Twitter, and closed the case.