Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A survivor alleged that pornography websites profited from videos depicting her abuse and asserted federal trafficking, child-pornography, and California privacy claims. She sought damages and platform-wide monitoring and removal measures.
The Central District of California dismissed the complaint. The appeal asked whether the claims treated the sites as publishers of third-party content and whether the federal sex-trafficking exception to Section 230 immunity applied.
The Court’s Holding
The majority affirmed. Duties requiring a site to monitor and remove user material are publishing duties protected by Section 230, and tools such as tags, search, recommendations, thumbnails, anonymized messaging, and revenue sharing were neutral rather than material development of the illegality alleged.
The FOSTA exception did not apply because the complaint did not adequately allege actual knowledge and affirmative participation in the trafficking venture. A partial dissent would have allowed the trafficking claim to proceed based on alleged revenue sharing.
Key Takeaways
- Claims framed around monitoring and removal generally treat a platform as a publisher.
- Neutral content tools do not make a service the creator or developer of unlawful user content.
- FOSTA requires detailed allegations of actual knowledge, affirmative assistance, causation, and benefit.
- Prompt removal after specific notice can undermine an allegation of knowing participation.
Why It Matters
The unpublished ruling is important to California platform, privacy, and survivor counsel because it illustrates the demanding pleading line after recent Ninth Circuit Section 230 cases. Complaints must connect a platform’s own conduct—not just its hosting functions—to a particular trafficking venture.