809 F. Supp. 2d 1041
E.D. Mo.2011Background
- M.A., a minor by her mother P.K., sues Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC and Backpage.com, LLC for victimization allegations tied to Backpage's platform.
- McFarland, the underlying abuser, pled guilty to criminal charges including a trafficking-related count; restitution and costs were ordered in her case.
- Amended complaint alleges Backpage posted, edited, and profited from advertisements featuring M.A. in sexualized contexts and facilitated trafficking.
- MA attempts to avoid § 230 immunity by framing Backpage as a content developer rather than a passive publisher, and by invoking § 2255 and the Optional Protocol.
- Backpage moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing broad immunity under 47 U.S.C. § 230 bars MA’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MA has Article III standing | MA alleges injury from Backpage ads causing sexual victimization. | Standing is not defeated by content-creation questions; but MA’s injury is tied to content created by others. | MA has standing; injury-in-fact shown by victimization linked to postings. |
| Whether § 230 immunity bars MA's § 2255 claim | Backpage’s role as content developer should defeat immunity. | Backpage is an ISP; immunized for third-party content regardless of profits or site enhancements. | § 230 immunity applies; MA’s § 2255 claim barred. |
| Whether § 230 immunity applies to MA's § 1595 claim | § 1595 claims should proceed notwithstanding § 230. | Immunity extends to civil actions arising from third-party content on Backpage. | Immunity extends to § 1595 as a civil action; claims barred. |
| Whether the Optional Protocol is self-executing or creates private rights | Optional Protocol priority rights trump § 230 immunity. | Protocol not self-executing; Congress implemented existing laws; no private federal remedy via treaty. | Optional Protocol is not self-executing; no private right of action; § 230 remains controlling. |
| Whether APA/ Charming Betsy concerns alter outcome | APA and Charming Betsy could override immunity. | Neither APA nor Charming Betsy applies; Backpage not an agency; treaty ratification status controls. | APA and Charming Betsy arguments rejected; immunity stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lycos, Inc. v. Superior Court, 478 F.3d 419 (1st Cir. 2006) (notice of unlawful content does not defeat § 230 immunity)
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (developer concept requires active encouragement of content; editors' role not sufficient)
- Roommates.com, LLC v. Company, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc: development in part may create content provider liability; context matters)
- MySpace, Inc. v. Mayer, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) (hosting user-generated content remains immune when content originates with users)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (concrete factual allegations required for plausibility)
- Goddard v. Google, Inc., 2008 WL 5245490 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (profit-seeking behavior does not defeat immunity when content is user-generated)