M.A. v. Village Voice Media, LLC [1]

On September 16, 2010, M.A., a minor, filed suit [2] against Village Voice Media for content posted on Backpage.com, a website that allows users to post classified ads targeted to specific geographic areas. M.A.'s claims were based on the Child Abuse Victim's Rights Act (CAVRA), 18 U.S.C. [3]§ 2251 et seq. [3], regarding the sexual exploitation of children. The complaint alleged that M.A. was a victim of sex trafficking by an adult who had already plead guilty to criminal activity involving M.A. M.A. claimed that Village Voice Media had posted advertisements, including explicit photographs of M.A., that Village Voice Media knew involved sex trafficking of minors. Based on these allegations, M.A. claimed that Village Voice Media victimized her in violation of CAVRA.

M.A. also asserted that immunity for internet service providers under 47 U.S.C. [4]§ 230 [4] (CDA 230) should not apply to Village Voice Media, because CDA 230  specifically states that the immunity shall not impair enforcement of laws against the sexual exploitation of children under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

In response, Village Voice Media filed a motion to dismiss [5] for failure to state a claim. In its memorandum in support of the motion [6], Village Voice Media argued that Backpage.com satisfies all the requirements for immunity under CDA 230, because it is a provider of an interactive computer service, and the ads in question were posted by third parties.

Village Voice Media relied on Doe v. Bates, 2006 WL 3813758 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2006), to argue that the criminal provisions of CAVRA did not apply to the CDA 230 analysis. In Bates, the court held that Congress's intent in passing CDA 230 was "not to allow private litigants to bring civil claims based on their own beliefs that a service provider's actions violated criminal law." 

M.A. subsequently filed an amended complaint [7], claiming that Village Voice Media had knowledge that illegal acts were being conducted on its website but allowed the activities to continue regardless. M.A. alleged that Village Voice Media had responded to subpoenas regarding the trafficking on minors on Backpage.com on five previous occasions. This, according to M.A., constituted aiding and abetting crimes against a child under CAVRA. Therefore, M.A. argued, CDA 230 immunity should not apply.

Village Voice Media again filed a motion to dismiss [8] for failure to state a claim in response to the amended complaint. The memorandum in support of the motion [9] offered the same arguments in support of CDA 230 immunity as the previous motion to dismiss. Village Voice Media additionally asserted that because M.A. was asserting a civil claim, not a criminal prosecution, the exception to immunity M.A. alleged did not apply. M.A.'s response to the motion [10], and Village Voice Media's reply [11], argued issues of law significantly similar to their previous positions.

On August 15, 2011, the court ruled [12] in favor of Village Voice Media, finding immunity under CDA 230. The court conducted a detailed review of case law regarding CDA 230 immunity, holding that Backpage.com fit under the statute's immunity provisions. The court then addressed M.A.'s claim that CDA 230 does not apply because it has no effect on criminal laws, and followed the holding in Bates, based on the fact that the content of the posts was provided by a third party.