Customer relations management (CRM) software company Salesforce has asked the Southern District of Texas court overseeing a Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) case to dismiss the claims against it for want of merit. The lawsuit, filed last month by an anonymous woman, alleges that Salesforce and co-defendant Backpage.com Inc., previously the largest sex trafficking website worldwide, were dually responsible for the compelled prostitution she experienced.
As previously reported, the complaint asserts that Backpage was a Salesforce customer throughout the plaintiff’s forced prostitution. The pleading alleges that Backpage received assistance from Salesforce to help expand its underhanded business despite Salesforce’s knowledge that the company was engaged in criminal trafficking.
In its motion, Salesforce notes that though the underlying facts are “tragic,” they are insufficiently tethered to the company to confer liability. The defendant’s argument is two-fold: the plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief, and her TVPA and state analogue claim are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which protects online intermediaries that host or republish speech from liability under an array of laws.
The defendant’s 12(b)(6) argument in-part rests on the plaintiff’s alleged lack of factual support. “The suggestion that Salesforce somehow knowingly facilitated Plaintiff’s trafficking simply by selling CRM software to a Backpage affiliate—software that Backpage allegedly used to expand its customer base—is unfounded and un supported,” the motion says.
Salesforce further contends Section 230 shields it from the plaintiff’s claims because it is an “interactive computer service provider” that the plaintiff seeks to hold liable for the effects of ads posted online by third parties. “[T]he only possible link between D.R.’s injuries and Salesforce is the classified ads posted on backpage.com by a criminal trafficker,” the motion explains. As such, Salesforce argues that Section 230 provides immunity to interactive service providers where, as here, a third-party willingly provides the published content.
Salesforce next contends that though the 2018 Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) amendments “created an exemption to Section 230 for certain civil claims, that exemption does not apply here.” The exception is limited to civil claims where the defendant violates the federal criminal trafficking statute, Salesforce contends.
Salesforce argues that the plaintiff does not and cannot plausibly allege that it itself committed such a violation. “This reading of the statute is confirmed by the plain language, the statutory structure, and the legislative history of FOSTA,” the motion asserts.
With no viable claim left standing, Salesforce urges the court to dismiss the action with prejudice. The defendant is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
