The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a lawsuit against Facebook that was brought by an underage girl who was sex trafficked by a user through its platform.
The justices declined to take up the girl’s case without comment.
Identified as “Jane Doe” in court papers, the girl said she was 15 years old when she was lured by an adult man on Facebook to leave her mother and pursue a career in modeling.
She ended up being raped and sex trafficked by the man before law enforcement rescued her.
She sued Facebook in Texas courts, attempting to hold the social network accountable for connecting sex traffickers with victims on its platform.
Her lawyers claimed the man’s account showed signs of sex trafficking, yet Facebook did not crack down on the user.
“The internet has exponentially increased the opportunities for sex trafficking, especially trafficking of children. Social media platforms in particular have been increasingly used to contact, recruit, and sell children for sex. Social media provides unrestricted access to minors for predators to target,” the girl’s lawyers wrote in a court filing.
They argued that Facebook makes a profit from its number of users, so it does not delete the accounts of sex traffickers.
But Facebook said it can’t be held liable for its users’ actions and moved to dismiss the case.
The Texas Supreme Court agreed, prompting the girl to appeal to the high court. However, at least one of her claims is still proceeding in the lower courts.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives publishers immunity from communications or third parties. The girl’s attorneys wanted the justices to examine if the law shields Facebook even if the company allegedly engaged in misconduct by not cracking down on the accounts of abusers.
In recent years, Republican lawmakers have called for a reexamination of the law, claiming that social media platforms are censoring conservative users.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement on the girl’s lawsuit Monday, saying it still has one claim percolating in the lower court, so he doesn’t think the high court should get involved at this time.
But he warned that the issue of Section 230 will need to be clarified by the courts or Congress since it has given companies sweeping immunity.
“It is hard to see why the protection §230(c)(1) grants publishers against being held strictly liable for third parties’ content should protect Facebook from liability for its own ’acts and omissions,’” Justice Thomas wrote.
A spokesperson for Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.