Facebook Child Sex Trafficking Case Will Not Be Heard By Supreme Court

Supreme Court Facebook Child Sex Trafficking Case:

• Who: The Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a woman who accuses Facebook of facilitating child sex trafficking.
• Why: The court says Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad immunity for online companies that can act as breeding grounds for people doing illegal things, although it added that this needs to be clarified by the legislature.
• Where: The Supreme Court is a national court. 

The Supreme Court will not hear the case of a woman who is accusing Facebook of facilitating child sex trafficking after she was raped at the age of 15 by a man who lured her on the social media platform. 

On Mar. 7, the Supreme Court published a statement on why it decided to deny certiorari to a 15-year-old Jane Doe from Texas who was raped and beaten by an adult sexual predator she met on Facebook in 2012.

In the statement, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court would not hear the case; however, he said the court believed the legislature should revisit the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides broad immunity for online companies publishing user-generated content.

The case relates revolves around a 2012 incident in which an adult male sexual predator used Facebook to lure 15-year-old Jane Doe to a meeting, shortly after which she was repeatedly raped, beaten and trafficked for sex. 

Doe eventually escaped and sued Facebook in Texas state court, alleging that Facebook had violated Texas’ anti-sex-trafficking statute and committed various common-law offenses.

Facebook petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus dismissing Doe’s suit, and the court held that Section 230 bars Doe’s common-law claims but not her statutory sex-trafficking claim.

Section 230 Needs Examination by Legislature, Judge Says

Thomas said the Texas Supreme Court afforded publisher immunity, siding with the consensus in the law, but acknowledging that the law was not entirely clear.

“The Texas Supreme Court recognized that ‘the United States Supreme Court — or better yet, Congress — may soon resolve the burgeoning debate about whether the federal courts have thus far correctly interpreted Section 230,” Justice Thomas said. “Assuming Congress does not step in to clarify §230’s scope, we should do so in an appropriate case. Unfortunately, this is not such a case. We have jurisdiction to review only ‘final judgments or decrees’ of state courts.”

Because the certiorari request dealt with the dismissal of one of Doe’s claims, while another was allowed to proceed, the litigation was not final, he said. 

Overall, the Texas court’s decision exemplified how courts have interpreted Section 230 to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world, the judge said. 

“At the very least, before we close the door on such serious charges, we should be certain that is what the law demands,” he added.

The news comes as Facebook last month agreed to pay $90 million to resolve decade-old claims it unlawfully tracked its users’ internet browsing activity even after they logged out of the social networking platform.

Should publishers be forced to take more responsibility for what happens through their platforms? Let us know in the comments! 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Social Media and Mental Health Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
• Facebook Class Action Lawsuits Reassigned as First Korean American Federal Appellate Judge Named
• Texas Sues Meta, Seeks Billions in Damages Over Alleged Illegally Obtained Facebook Biometrics
• Religious Leaders Write Letter Urging Zuckerberg To Scrap ‘Instagram Kids’ Idea