Summary
This Fifth Circuit opinion addresses an interlocutory appeal regarding whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Salesforce immunity from liability under federal and state sex-trafficking statutes. The court holds that Section 230 does not bar the plaintiffs' claims because they do not treat Salesforce as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. Instead, the claims allege that Salesforce knowingly facilitated trafficking by providing cloud-based software services to a company it knew was engaged in illegal activity. The court affirms the district court's denial of summary judgment and remands for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs' claims treated Salesforce as the publisher or speaker of third-party content for purposes of immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).
- What legal standard governs determining whether a claim treats an internet-related defendant as a publisher or speaker under section 230.
- Whether Salesforce was entitled to summary judgment based on section 230 immunity.
Holdings
- The proper inquiry is whether the duty allegedly violated derives from the defendant's status or conduct as a publisher or speaker, or requires the exercise of functions traditionally associated with publication. A mechanical but-for or only-link causation test is inconsistent with section 230's text.
- Plaintiffs' claims did not treat Salesforce as the publisher or speaker of third-party content because the alleged duty not to knowingly benefit from participation in a sex-trafficking venture did not derive from Salesforce's publisher status or require publication-related functions.
- Salesforce was not entitled to section 230 immunity at the summary-judgment stage, and the district court's denial of summary judgment was affirmed.
Key quotations
“the proper standard is whether the duty the defendant allegedly violated derives from their status as a publisher or speaker or requires the exercise of functions traditionally associated with publication.” (792)
“If the duty “derives from the defendant’s status or conduct as a ‘publisher or speaker[,]’” then section 230 precludes liability.” (801)
“But if the plaintiff’s theories would not require the defendant to exercise some kind of publication or editorial function, then section 230 does not preclude liability.” (801)
“Immunity and liability are distinct.” (807)
Factual background
Salesforce provided cloud-based customer-relationship-management software and related operational support to Backpage from approximately late 2013 through December 2018. Backpage was an online advertising forum that knowingly facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking and was later seized by the Department of Justice and pleaded guilty to human trafficking. Plaintiffs alleged that they were trafficked through Backpage advertisements and that Salesforce knowingly assisted or benefited from the trafficking venture by providing business tools and support despite knowledge of Backpage's activities.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued Salesforce in the Southern District of Texas, alleging that Salesforce knowingly benefited from and facilitated a sex-trafficking venture by providing business software, tools, and support to Backpage. After denying Salesforce's motion to dismiss on the section 230 issue and allowing limited discovery, the district court denied Salesforce's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs' claims did not treat Salesforce as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. The district court certified the order for interlocutory appeal, and a Fifth Circuit panel granted permission to appeal.
Remand instructions
Remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.