JANE DOES V. REDDIT, INC., 51 F.4th 1137

Plaintiffs are parents and a former minor whose sexually explicit images/videos of minors were posted to Reddit subreddits; they repeatedly reported the content and Reddit sometimes removed posts, which were often reposted.
Plaintiffs allege Reddit hosted and promoted subreddits openly marketing child pornography, profited via advertising on popular pages, and delayed or failed to adopt safeguards (e.g., PhotoDNA, age verification, IP tracking).
Plaintiffs brought a class action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 alleging Reddit is liable as a beneficiary of child sex trafficking and other claims.
The district court dismissed under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (CDA §230) and held that FOSTA’s §230(e)(5)(A) exception is triggered only if the defendant-website’s own conduct violates 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding FOSTA’s exception requires that the defendant-website itself have violated § 1591, and that plaintiffs’ allegations against Reddit were insufficient to state a § 1591 violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FOSTA §230(e)(5)(A) removes §230 immunity when the conduct "underlying the claim" violates 18 U.S.C. §1591 — whose conduct must that be?	The underlying conduct can be users’ trafficking conduct; plaintiffs may invoke FOSTA when the claim derives from users’ §1591 conduct.	The exception applies only if the defendant-website’s own conduct violates §1591.	The court holds the website’s own conduct must violate §1591 for FOSTA’s §230 exception to apply.
Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged Reddit violated §1591 (beneficiary liability: knowingly benefited from knowingly facilitating trafficking).	Allegations that Reddit profited from controversial child-porn subreddits, highlighted them for ads, permitted moderators who posted illegal content, and failed to remove reported content show knowing participation/facilitation.	These allegations show at most that Reddit "turned a blind eye," lack allegations of knowing assistance/facilitation or a causal link between trafficking and specific benefits.	The court held plaintiffs did not plead facts showing Reddit knowingly participated in or knowingly benefited from facilitating trafficking under §1591; claim fails.

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. 27 (2015) ("based upon"/"gravamen" inquiry — identify conduct underlying a claim).
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (identical words in same statute normally bear same meaning).
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) (definite article with singular noun indicates a discrete thing).
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721 (2020) (construction across adjacent provisions enacted together).
Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 230 generally immunizes providers for third-party content).
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (§ 230 protection is robust).
Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) (websites shielded from publisher liability for third-party posts).
United States v. Afyare, [citation="632 F. App'x 272"] (6th Cir. 2016) (beneficiary liability under §1591 requires active participation in trafficking).
Geiss v. Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (knowing benefit requires causal relationship between affirmative conduct furthering trafficking and receipt of benefit).