Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist

December 11, 2020 · by Eric Goldman · in Content Regulation, Derivative Liability

This is one of several pending cases against Craigslist for its alleged role in facilitating sex trafficking before 2010. In this case, the district court held that Section 230(c)(1) immunized the plaintiff’s state law claims. The plaintiff sought reconsideration due to Justice Thomas’ problematic anti-Section 230 statement in conjunction with the denial of certiorari in the Malwarebytes v. Enigma case. The court summarizes the plaintiff’s argument for reconsideration:

subsequent Supreme Court authority “supports the conclusion that Section 230 immunity does not apply to Craigslist.”…Plaintiff contends that “the Supreme Court recently confirmed that the originally intended scope of Section 230 is ‘a far cry from what has prevailed in court,’ and implored lower courts to stop ‘reading extra immunity into statutes where it does not belong.’”

The court responds plainly that Justice Thomas’ statement “does not qualify as a change in or clarification of controlling law.” (That seems like an exceptionally obvious conclusion to any lawyer, but maybe I’m missing something). It was just one judge’s statement, and an ill-informed one at that (Justice Thomas himself admitted that it was prepared “without the benefit of briefing”). The court adds that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Malwarebytes case and Justice Thomas voted to support the denial. So the court says there’s no basis for a reconsideration.

Whatever the court decides here, this case will surely end up before the Ninth Circuit.

Case citation: J.B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC, 2020 WL 7260057 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020)

More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts:

Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist

Comments and Pings

One Pingback/Trackback