Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a case involving a lawsuit that aimed to hold Reddit Inc. accountable for its alleged failure to remove child pornography from its platform. The lawsuit accused Reddit of violating federal law by allowing illegal content to persist on its discussion website. The court’s decision reinforces the legal shield provided to internet companies under a U.S. statute called Section 230, which protects them from being held liable for content posted by their users. However, it is important to note that Section 230 does have an exception for claims related to child sex trafficking.
The proposed class action lawsuit was dismissed by a lower court, citing Reddit’s immunity under Section 230. This statute, part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, grants “interactive computer services” the status of a platform rather than a publisher or speaker of user-generated content. While Reddit was shielded by Section 230, the lawsuit sought to explore the scope of an amendment to the statute known as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). FOSTA allows lawsuits against internet companies in cases involving child sex trafficking.
At the heart of the case were sexually explicit images and videos of minors posted on Reddit by its users. The plaintiffs, including parents of minors and a former minor who were subjects of the illegal content, filed the lawsuit in 2021, seeking monetary damages. They alleged that Reddit had not done enough to remove or prevent child pornography and financially benefited from the illegal posts through advertising, violating a federal child sex trafficking law.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, concluded in 2022 that for the exception under FOSTA to apply, the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate that Reddit “knowingly benefited” from sex trafficking through its own actions. The court found that the allegations only suggested that Reddit had turned a blind eye to the unlawful content rather than actively participating in sex trafficking.
Reddit, in response, stated that it makes concerted efforts to identify and prevent the sharing of child sexual exploitation materials on its platform. It provides users with the ability to report posts, and it maintains dedicated teams to remove illegal content.
This Supreme Court decision follows another case in which the court declined to address the scope of Section 230 immunity. In that separate case, Google LLC was accused of recommending content by the Islamic State militant group on its YouTube video-sharing service. Calls from various quarters, including President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, have urged a reconsideration of Section 230 to ensure that companies can be held accountable for the content on their platforms.
The plaintiffs in the Reddit case argued that child pornography is a significant driver of sex trafficking, primarily facilitated through websites claiming immunity under Section 230. They expressed concern that upholding the 9th Circuit’s decision would provide immunity to a large number of individuals involved in the victimization of children.
As the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal, the legal shield provided to internet companies remains intact. Section 230 continues to safeguard them from lawsuits relating to content posted by users, except in cases involving child sex trafficking. The implications of this decision resonate with ongoing debates about the responsibilities and accountability of online platforms for illegal activities taking place on their services.