Keep in mind — no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it’s still gonna oink. If I was representing FB in this sort of case, I would send out some very detailed written discovery requests asking the plaintiffs to explain the facts supporting their case. I’m guessing the response would be crickets, which will result in an easy MSJ win in the near future. People who are unhappy with their choices in life can try to blame Facebook or anyone else, but that won’t change reality.

The bottom line is that with or without the CDA, junk lawsuits usually don’t get that far…because junk is always still junk. I am in no way defending the practice of “sex trafficking” (whatever that is), but if a young person chooses to run away from home, chooses to start doing drugs, and they choose to start having sex for money (and they choose not to seek help from law enforcement, their family, etc.)….I’m sorry, but that sort of plaintiff will get no sympathy from me with or without the CDA.

So yes, this incorrect ruling will force FB to endure a little bit of discovery. Zuck can afford it. And at the end of the day, when this case dies on its own lack of merit, that may hopefully discourage future plaintiffs from trying to spin the judicial slot machine with groundless claims like this.