in , , , , , , , ,

Who’s to Blame? Facebook Can’t Shake 2 Lawsuits

Who’s to Blame?

Facebook Can’t Shake Lawsuits Over Alleged Child-Sex Trafficking on Its Platform



(Angela Morris) These lawsuits are pushing the legal limits of how social media companies like Facebook can be held accountable for sex trafficking that occurs on their platforms.

by Angela Morris, April 29th, 2020

Facebook has actually once again lost its court fight to dismiss claims by three young women who claimed they were sex trafficked on Facebook or Instagram platforms. These claims are pushing the legal limits of how social media companies can be held accountable for sex trafficking that happens on their platforms. In a 2-1 ruling Tuesday, the 14th Court of Appeals affirmed 2 trial judges’ orders that rejected Facebook’s motions to dismiss the claims under the Texas Guidelines of Civil Treatment 91a, which is the Lone Star State’s variation of the federal 12( b)( 6) movement to dismiss for failure to specify a claim. The dissenting justice urged the Texas Supreme Court to use up the cases. Annie McAdamsAnnie McAdams. Courtesy photo The girls’ attorney informed Texas Attorney this is the first time any plaintiffs endured difficulties by Facebook under the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that says that interactive computer system service providers can’t be dealt with as the publishers or speakers of content on their platforms.

Schedule The Franklin Cover-up: Kid Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska

“The Communications Decency Act was never ever intended to protect big tech companies when they purposefully assist in illegal activities,” stated complainants attorney Annie McAdams, who pledged to eliminate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if required. “We understood when we filed this case it was groundbreaking advancements in the law.” Not immune or immune? The plaintiffs in the suit declared that others sex-trafficked them through the Facebook platforms.

They declared that Facebook understands it has a sex trafficking issue however has done nothing to secure children. Facebook denies the accusations. The business has said that it works with child defence experts, police and other tech companies to “obstruct and remove exploitative images and videos, as well as to prevent grooming online.” Facebook asks users to report prospective human-trafficking material. Facebook tried arguing that it was immune from the claims under that communications law.

The tech giant had argued that being immune indicated the complainants, who were teenagers when they alleged the sex trafficking occurred, had failed to mention a claim upon which relief can be given, and the suits must be tossed from court. The two trial judges presiding over the three teens’ claims declined that argument. The social network’s business appealed, seeking mandamus remedy for the 14th Court. However, the two-justice bulk rejected relief. “Facebook has actually not developed that it is entitled to mandamus relief,” the per curiam bulk opinion said. In a dissenting viewpoint, Justice Tracy Christopher disagreed and composed that the state’s high court needs to have a look at the cases.

The three plaintiffs were asking the 14th Court to analyze the Communications Decency Act in such a way that only a few courts have actually done, she described, including that most of the courts have ruled in favour of Facebook’s arguments. The dissent added that the Communications Decency Act was changed in 2017 to include an exception to resistance.

Nevertheless, she wrote, the exception would not apply in a civil action in a state court. “Federal law grants Facebook immunity from suits such as these,” Christopher wrote. “Due to the fact that Facebook has resistance, these suits have no basis in law, and dismissal under Texas Guideline of Procedure 91a appertains.” Hunton Andrews Kurth partners Scott Brister and Kelly Sandill both declined to comment. No one in the Facebook press office immediately returned an email looking for remark.

Thank you for reading.


Filed Under: Law, News Tagged With Facebook, litigation, pedophilia, social media, texas lawyer

Notices and Disclaimers

To sign up for RSS updates, paste this link ( into the search field of your preferred RSS Reader or Service (such as Feedly or gReader).

The Inner Light Newsletter

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

The Inner Light DISCLAIMER: All articles, videos, statements, claims, views and opinions that appear anywhere on this site, whether stated as theories or absolute facts, are always presented by The Inner Light as unverified—and should be personally fact checked and discerned by you, the reader. Any opinions or statements herein presented are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, or agreed to by TIL, those who work with TIL, or those who read TIL. Any belief or conclusion gleaned from content on this site is solely the responsibility of you the reader to substantiate, fact check, and no harm comes to you or those around you. And any actions taken by those who read material on this site is solely the responsibility of the acting party. You are encouraged to think carefully and do your own research. Nothing on this site is meant to be believed without question or personal appraisal.

Content Disclaimer: All content on this site marked with “source – [enter website name and url]” is not owned by The Inner Light. All content on this site that is not originally written, created, or posted as original, is owned by the original content creators, who retain exclusive jurisdiction of all intellectual property rights. Any copyrighted material on this site was shared in good faith, under fair use or creative commons. Any request to remove copyrighted material will be honored, provided proof of ownership is rendered. Send takedown requests to

What is our mission?

Why do we post what we do?

Our mission here is to curate (share) articles and information that we feel is important for the evolution of consciousness. Most of that information is written or produced by other people and organizations, which means it does not represent our views or opinions as managing staff members of TIL. Some of the content is written by one of our writers and is clearly marked accordingly. Just because we share a CNN story that speaks badly about the President doesn’t mean we’re promoting anti-POTUS views. We’re reporting on the fact it was reported, and that this event is important for us to know so we can better contend with the challenges of gaining freedom and prosperity. Similarly, just because we share a pro/anti-[insert issue or topic] content, such as a pro-second amendment piece or an anti-military video doesn’t mean we endorse what is said. Again, information is shared on this site for the purpose of evolving consciousness. In our opinion, consciousness evolves through the process of accumulating knowledge of the truth and contemplating that knowledge to distill the wisdom and improve life by discovering and incorporating holistic values. Thus, sharing information from many different sources, with many different perspectives is the best way to maximize evolution. What’s more, the mastery of mind and discernment doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it is much like the immune system, it needs regular exposure to new things to stay healthy and strong. If you have any questions as to our mission or methods please reach out to us at

Read Other Trending News

Read Original Article

Please follow and like us:
Follow by Email
Visit Us
Follow Me
5 1 vote
Article Rating

What do you think?

150 points
Upvote Downvote

Written by The Inner Light


Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments



Jeffrey Epstein Seen 2 Times with Bill Clinton On ‘Pedo Island’

#Obamagate: The Manchurian Candidate [ Part 1] (Video)