Catching Up on a FOSTA Case–ML v. Craigslist

This is one of many FOSTA cases in process. They are all quite complicated and hard to understand. This particular lawsuit targets Craigslist even though Craigslist shut down its adult services category in 2010, eight years before FOSTA was enacted, and some of the ads in question are from 2008 or before. In the latest ruling, the supervising judge responds to the magistrate’s R&R. Mostly, the judge accepts the R&R with only minor deviations favorable to Craigslist, ending some of the lawsuit and leaving plenty of topics for further proceedings. Some of the points addressed in the court’s ruling:

* The court denies Craigslist’s summary judgment motion based on statute of limitations so it can figure out when the plaintiff discovered Craigslist’s role in the harm and whether she exercised diligence in pursuing her claim afterwards.

* Section 230 immunizes the negligence and strict liability claims against Craigslist. The plaintiff pointed to an Armslist case in Wisconsin, a yearbook case in Illinois, and the 9th Circuit’s Gonzalez case. Regarding the Wisconsin precedent, the court implies there’s a brewing circuit split: “the Seventh Circuit…has deviated from the majority of circuit courts, including the Ninth Circuit.” The yearbook case’s facts were easily distinguished because the plaintiff “does not allege that craigslist altered or redistributed any content on its website.” The Gonzalez case didn’t change the outcome because:

M.L.’s allegations seek to hold craigslist liable as a publisher or speaker of a third party’s content. Unlike in, nothing in craigslist’s terms of use or on its website required or even prompted posters to post unlawful content. The closest thing to prompting unlawful content is the subsection title “erotic services.” But erotic services include lawful content, such as erotic dancing. Further, providing neutral tools, such as geographic filters, a search bar, and an embedded messaging system does not turn craigslist into a content creator or developer. Failing to remove posts or verify identities is also insufficient. It is unclear how the remaining factors, such as stamping posts with its copyright and requiring posters to use a credit card, could transform craigslist into a content creator. The Northern District of California reached the same conclusion in a similar case to this one, J.B. v. G6 Hospitality, LLC¸ 2020 WL 4901196 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2020). There, faced with almost identical facts, the court held that craigslist was entitled to § 230 immunity because craigslist only acted as a publisher by providing subsections titled “adult services” or “erotic services” and by failing to verify the age of the person being advertised or the identity of the poster.

Section 230 also applied to the “leading organized crime” claims.

Though the decision doesn’t turn on this point, the court notes some legal irony in the footnotes:

the origins of § 230, its plain language, and the case law interpreting it that the law was designed to protect internet service providers for taking actions to address unlawful or harmful activity, i.e., acting as “good Samaritans.” Holding craigslist’s efforts to address the problem of sex trafficking against it would be directly contrary to Congress’s original intent in passing § 230

* The court reverses the magistrate on part of the Criminal Profiteering Act, holding that the plaintiff didn’t sufficiently allege “that craigslist accepted money pursuant to an agreement to participate in M.L.’s trafficking.” However, another part of the CPA claim proceeds based on the allegation that “craigslist was generally aware its website was being used to facilitate sex trafficking.”

Most of the topics addressed in this ruling will eventually make it to the Ninth Circuit, either in this case or one of the others pending in the court system. Some issues are already pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Case Citation: M.L. v. Craigslist, Inc., 2022 WL 1210830 (W.D. Wash. April 25, 2022)

More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts

* Facebook Loses Jurisdictional Ruling in Texas Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Facebook v. Doe
Justice Thomas Really, REALLY Wants Section 230 Repealed (Even If He Has to Do It Himself)
Section 230 Immunizes TikTok for User-Posted Videos–Day v. TikTok
So Many Unanswered Empirical Questions About FOSTA
Another Problematic FOSTA Ruling–Doe v. Pornhub
Catching Up on Recent FOSTA Developments (None of Them Good)
Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. Omegle
To No One’s Surprise, FOSTA Is Confounding Judges–J.B. v. G6
FOSTA Claim Can Proceed Against Twitter–Doe v. Twitter
FOSTA Survives Constitutional Challenge–US v. Martono
2H 2020 Quick Links, Part 4 (FOSTA)
Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist
Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Against Craigslist Moves Forward–ML v. Craigslist
Section 230 Preempts Another FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Kik
Section 230 Protects Craigslist from Sex Trafficking Claims, Despite FOSTA–JB v. Craigslist
Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court
Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. Craigslist
2H 2019 and Q1 2020 Quick Links, Part 3 (FOSTA/Backpage)
New Paper Explains How FOSTA Devastated Male Sex Workers
FOSTA Constitutional Challenge Revived–Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. US
New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post)
Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Salesforce
Latest Linkwrap on FOSTA’s Aftermath
Section 230 Doesn’t End Lawsuit Claiming Facebook Facilitated Sex Trafficking–Doe v. Facebook
New Essay: The Complicated Story of FOSTA and Section 230
Who Benefited from FOSTA? (Spoiler: Probably No One)
FOSTA’s Political Curse
FOSTA Doesn’t Help Pro Se Litigant’s Defamation Claim Against Facebook
Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Dismissed for Lack of Standing (Guest Blog Post)
An Update on the Constitutional Court Challenge to FOSTA–Woodhull Freedom v. US (Guest Blog Post)
Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down”
Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v. US (Guest Blog Post)
Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap)
More Aftermath from the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’
‘Worst of Both Worlds’ FOSTA Signed Into Law, Completing Section 230’s Evisceration
Backpage Loses Another Section 230 Motion (Again Without SESTA/FOSTA)–Florida Abolitionists v. Backpage
District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. Backpage
More on the Unconstitutional Retroactivity of ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Guest Blog Post)
Senate Passes ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Linkwrap)
Why FOSTA’s Restriction on Prostitution Promotion Violates the First Amendment (Guest Blog Post)
SESTA’s Sponsors Still Don’t Understand Section 230 (As They Are About to Eviscerate It)
Can the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ Be Salvaged? Perhaps…and You Can Help (URGENT CALL TO ACTION)
Congress Probably Will Ruin Section 230 This Week (SESTA/FOSTA Updates)
What’s New With SESTA/FOSTA (January 17, 2018 edition)
New House Bill (Substitute FOSTA) Has More Promising Approach to Regulating Online Sex Trafficking
* My testimony at the House Energy & Commerce Committee: Balancing Section 230 and Anti-Sex Trafficking Initiatives
How SESTA Undermines Section 230’s Good Samaritan Provisions
Manager’s Amendment for SESTA Slightly Improves a Still-Terrible Bill
Another Human Trafficking Expert Raises Concerns About SESTA (Guest Blog Post)
Another SESTA Linkwrap (Week of October 30)
Recent SESTA Developments (A Linkwrap)
Section 230’s Applicability to ‘Inconsistent’ State Laws (Guest Blog Post)
An Overview of Congress’ Pending Legislation on Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post)
The DOJ’s Busts of MyRedbook & Rentboy Show How Backpage Might Be Prosecuted (Guest Blog Post)
Problems With SESTA’s Retroactivity Provision (Guest Blog Post)
My Senate Testimony on SESTA + SESTA Hearing Linkwrap
Debunking Some Myths About Section 230 and Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post)
Congress Is About To Ruin Its Online Free Speech Masterpiece (Cross-Post)
Backpage Executives Must Face Money Laundering Charges Despite Section 230–People v. Ferrer
How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (guest blog post)
Sen. Portman Says SESTA Doesn’t Affect the Good Samaritan Defense. He’s Wrong
Senate’s “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017”–and Section 230’s Imminent Evisceration
The “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230
WARNING: Draft “No Immunity for Sex Traffickers Online Act” Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230
The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. § 230’s Immunity