Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. Omegle

January 13, 2022 · by Eric Goldman · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability

Omegle enables real-time video and text chats with users assigned at random. The case involves an 11 year old girl who was a first-time Omegle user. The complaint alleges that a malefactor John Doe manipulated her into disrobing so he could make screengrabs. The plaintiffs brought the following claims against Omegle: (1) possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A; (2) violation of the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595; (3) violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710; (4) intrusion upon seclusion; (5) negligence; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) ratification/vicarious liability; and (8) public nuisance. Omegle moved to dismiss on Section 230 grounds, which the court grants.

ICS Provider. “Omegle’s hosting capabilities for its users, coupled with its lack of material content generation, place it squarely within the definition of an ICS provider.”

Publisher/Speaker Claims. Some of the plaintiffs’ claims “seek redress for damages caused by John Doe’s conduct. No well-pleaded facts suggest that Omegle had actual knowledge of the sex trafficking venture involving C.H. or that Omegle had an active participation in the venture.”

Other claims “are rooted in the creation and maintenance of the platform. These claims recognize the distinction between Omegle as an ICS provider and the users, but nonetheless treat Omegle as the publisher responsible for the conduct at issue…The CDA bars such claims as they seek to redirect liability onto Omegle for the ultimate actions of their users.”

Third-Party Content. “the information and content at issue here was in fact generated by a separate content provider, John Doe. The Second Amended Complaint recounts that C.H.’s injuries were caused by John Doe during their chatroom encounter. John Doe’s video feed, his brandishing of C.H.’s personal identifying information, and the threats he subjected her to were not provided by Omegle in any sense. Merely providing the forum where harmful conduct took place cannot otherwise serve to impose liability onto Omegle.”

FOSTA. “generalized knowledge that sex trafficking occurs on a website is insufficient to maintain a plausible 18 U.S.C. § 1591 claim that survives CDA immunity….the asserted claims against Omegle are premised upon general, constructive knowledge of past sex trafficking incidents.” Cite to Doe v. Kik. I will have more to say on this topic in a very lengthy FOSTA roundup blog post stuck in my queue.

Court’s Conclusion: “Congress has instructed that claims for harm suffered at the hands of other users, without more, cannot justify redirecting liability to the forum where the harm took place. While the Court sympathizes with Plaintiffs over the harm C.H. suffered while using Omegle, the Court finds that they have nonetheless failed to plead claims that withstand Omegle’s Section 230 Immunity.” For this reason, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Case citation: M.H. v. Omegle.com, LLC, 2022 WL 93575 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2022). I filed a rebuttal report in this case, but the court granted the motion to dismiss without reaching the reports.

More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts:

Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. Omegle

Comments and Pings

One Pingback/Trackback