Back in 2021, two John Doe plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Twitter (now “X”) alleging a variety of claims, including violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and other statutes. Monday, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit’s remaining claims, relying on recent decision in a similar case recently heard by a higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The core of the lawsuit dismissed Monday stemmed from Twitter’s failure to remove child sexual abuse material (CSAM) from the platform after being notified of its presence by the plaintiffs. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were “solicited and recruited for sex trafficking as minors” and the CSAM depicting them was later disseminated on Twitter.”

“When Twitter was first alerted to this fact and the ages of the children, Twitter refused to remove the illegal material and instead continued to promote and profit from the sexual abuse of the children,” according to the complaint.

At trial, the court dismissed most the claims against Twitter, but left in place the plaintiffs’ TVPRA claim for “beneficiary liability” 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(2) and 1595(a) – two section headings that might sound familiar if you read YNOT’s recent coverage of the different mens rea standards applied under the statutes.

As U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero noted in his order filed Monday, at the time he issued a previous ruling in the case, the one in which he declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ TVPRA claim for beneficiary liability, “the law addressing the interplay between these two provisions in the context of interactive computer service (“ICS”) providers and third-party content was scant.”

In his prior ruling, Spero “addressed three questions: How stringent is the mens rea requirement as to Twitter’s knowledge of whether Plaintiffs were victims of sex trafficking? What must be alleged to show that Twitter participated in a ‘venture’? and What must be alleged to show that Twitter received a benefit from the sex trafficking venture and that the benefit motivated its conduct?”

To make a long, complicated and legalese-packed story a good deal shorter, Spero decided in his August order that “where a plaintiff seeks to impose civil liability under Section 1595 based on a violation of Section 1591(a)(2), the constructive knowledge language in Section 1595 (“knew or should have known”) applies rather than the actual knowledge standard of Section 1591(a)(2)” – but the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Does 1-6 v. Reddit changes the analysis.

Citing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Reddit case, Twitter argued that the John Doe plaintiffs’ claim “fails for the same reason the beneficiary liability claim asserted in Reddit failed, namely, because they have not alleged facts establishing that the Twitter ‘knowingly participated in or benefited from a sex trafficking venture.’”

In response, the plaintiffs contended that Twitter’s motion to dismiss the beneficiary liability claim because the plaintiffs “have plausibly alleged a claim for beneficiary liability; their claim meets the standards set forth in Reddit for the FOSTA exemption to CDA § 230 immunity to apply; and 3) their beneficiary-liability claim does not treat Twitter as a ‘publisher’ or ‘speaker’ and therefore falls outside the scope of CDA § 230.’”

In his decision issued Monday, Spero noted that the Ninth Circuit “remanded this case for consideration of whether the FOSTA exemption from CDA § 230 immunity applies in this case under the standards set forth in Reddit. The Court finds that it does not.”

Spero explained that the “principal teaching” of the Reddit case is “in order for Plaintiffs to invoke FOSTA’s exemption to CDA § 230, they must show that Twitter’s own conduct violated Section 1591.” (Emphasis added.)

“The court in Reddit made clear that ‘a complaint against a website that merely alleges trafficking by the website’s users—without the participation of the website—would not survive,’” Spero wrote. “Plaintiffs argue that they have met the Reddit standard because they have alleged facts showing Twitter had ‘actual knowledge’ that the photos were the product of child sex trafficking and affirmatively refused to remove them. The material facts alleged by Plaintiffs, however, are essentially the same as the ones alleged in Reddit as to the website’s awareness of and participation in alleged sex trafficking and that were found to be insufficient by the Ninth Circuit.”

While the plaintiffs in the Twitter case sought to distinguish their case from Reddit, the court noted several similarities which undermine the plaintiffs’ attempt to differentiate their claims.

“In Reddit, as in this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the website had both general knowledge that child sexual abuse material proliferated on its platform and specific knowledge that CSAM depicting the plaintiffs was being posted and shared on it,” Spero observed. “Further, in Reddit, as in this case, the plaintiffs alleged that at least in some instances, Reddit affirmatively ‘refused’ to remove ‘child pornography’ containing sexually explicit images and video of the plaintiffs when they or their parents alerted Reddit of the child pornography.”

The plaintiffs also tried to distinguish the Reddit case by noting that Reddit “used non-employee, volunteer moderators to supervise the subreddits” – but here, too, the court found the details of the two cases to be more similar than the plaintiffs asserted, observing that “the plaintiffs in Reddit alleged – and the Ninth Circuit recognized – that requests to remove the offensive posts were also made directly to Reddit employees, just as the requests in this case are alleged to have been made directly to Twitter.”

“Therefore, the Court concludes that under Reddit, the conduct alleged in this case amounts to ‘turning a blind eye’ rather than ‘active participation’ in sex trafficking and therefore does not amount to a criminal violation of section 1591(a)(2) as is required to fall outside of the immunity established under CDA § 230,” Spero concluded.

The court’s order dismisses the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and without leave to amend, stating that the plaintiffs “have not pointed to any way they can salvage this claim by amendment.”

In a statement reacting to the court’s order, the attorneys for the plaintiffs said they “will continue to seek justice and accountability on their behalf” and are “considering their appellate options.”

“This lawsuit sought to hold a massive social media platform accountable for knowingly and recklessly spreading child pornography – also known as child sexual abuse material (“CSAM”) – of two young boys,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys added. “Today’s ruling shows the errors with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes companies like X from any kind of accountability. These two boys will suffer from this for the rest of their lives, but X has no legal consequence or deterrent from continuing the same type of harm.”

The Reddit ruling could have a similar impact on several cases pending before other courts in the Ninth Circuit, including some targeting adult platforms like Pornhub. The facts in each case are different, however, so it remains to be seen if any of the courts hearing those cases are persuaded that the logic underpinning the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Reddit is sufficient to take the defendants in those cases off the hook, as well.