June 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Facebook cannot invoke a controversial federal liability shield to evade a lawsuit accusing the social media giant of failing to prevent its platform from being used by sex traffickers, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The Houston Chronicle reports that the case concerns teenage trafficking victims who met their pimps via Facebook Messenger and Facebook-owned Instagram.
Their lawsuits accuse Facebook of negligence and product liability on the grounds that the platform offers “a point of first contact between sex traffickers and these children” and “an unrestricted platform to stalk, exploit, recruit, groom, and extort children into the sex trade”; and that the company failed to warn of or prevent their platform being used for sex trafficking, and that Facebook even benefitted from the practice.
Facebook defended itself by invoking Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which exempts internet companies from liability for the content third parties publish on their websites. But the Lone Star State’s highest court rejected that defense, finding that Facebook had violated Texas law and the lawsuits could proceed.
“We do not understand Section 230 to ‘create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet’ in which states are powerless to impose liability on websites that knowingly or intentionally participate in the evil of online human trafficking,” the majority wrote. “Holding internet platforms accountable for the words or actions of their users is one thing, and the federal precedent uniformly dictates that Section 230 does not allow it. Holding internet platforms accountable for their own misdeeds is quite another thing. This is particularly the case for human trafficking.”
The justices noted that since its original enactment, Section 230 has been amended specifically to allow states to hold websites civilly liable for facilitating human trafficking, whether through action or inaction.
Following the verdict, plaintiffs’ lead attorney Annie McAdams hailed the case as the first to overcome Facebook’s invocation of Section 230. “While we have a long road ahead, we are grateful that the Texas Supreme Court will allow these courageous trafficking survivors to have their day in court against Facebook. … We believe trafficking survivors in Texas can expose and hold accountable businesses such as Facebook that benefit from these crimes of exploitation.”
A Facebook spokesperson said the company is weighing its legal options, and claimed that “sex trafficking is abhorrent and not allowed on Facebook. We will continue our fight against the spread of this content and the predators who engage in it.”
Once an obscure provision of federal internet regulation, Section 230 has in recent years become a focal point of the debate over whether the government can intervene to prevent communication platforms from discriminating against conservatives.
In the context of social media, Section 230 immunizes websites from being held liable for user-generated content such as posts, tweets, or videos uploaded by their users. This provision has been credited with helping the internet thrive, but has grown controversial in recent years as social media companies have grown aggressive in deciding which content to restrict and what to flag as “hateful,” “harmful,” or “misinformation.”
Conservatives argue that while Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other user-driven outlets may have a legal right to decide what content to allow on their platforms, by exercising subjective preference for some views and claims over others they have forfeited their claim to what Section 230 gives them above and beyond that legal right. Some favor abolishing Section 230 entirely; others instead want to amend it to make immunity conditional on a more hands-off approach to political speech.
The Texas case may not directly impact Big Tech’s political activities, but it does highlight the extent to which companies like Facebook rely on Section 230 for interests above and beyond their legitimate rights, and demonstrates that the federal regulation has been amended in the past to address matters of public concern, and could be amended to do so again.