Skip to Content
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a pivotal decision allowing sex-trafficking victims to proceed with their lawsuit against Salesforce, Inc., despite Salesforce’s attempt to invoke immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
The Case: A.B. v. Salesforce, Inc.
In this case, plaintiffs—sex-trafficking victims trafficked through advertisements on the now-infamous Backpage.com—alleged that Salesforce knowingly facilitated sex trafficking. From 2013 to 2018, Salesforce provided Backpage with cloud-based customer relationship management (CRM) software and services. During this period, Backpage was under investigation for facilitating prostitution and child sex trafficking. In 2018, the Department of Justice seized Backpage, which later pleaded guilty to human trafficking.
The plaintiffs argued that Salesforce’s tools and support directly enabled Backpage to operate, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Salesforce sought summary judgment, claiming Section 230 immunity. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, ruling that Section 230 does not protect Salesforce in this context because the claims did not treat Salesforce as a publisher or speaker of third-party content.
Why Salesforce Was Not Immune
Section 230 was originally enacted to shield internet platforms from liability for content posted by third parties, promoting the growth of the then-fledgling internet. However, its scope has been subject to significant debate and litigation. The Fifth Circuit clarified that Salesforce’s role in this case was distinct from that of a publisher or speaker.
The court found that Salesforce’s liability stemmed from its alleged participation in a sex-trafficking venture by providing operational support to Backpage, despite knowing—or having reason to know—that Backpage was involved in illegal activities. Importantly, Salesforce did not engage in traditional publishing functions, such as:
- Screening, monitoring, or filtering content;
- Reviewing or analyzing third-party content;
- Hosting, editing, or altering third-party content;
- Developing or enforcing content moderation policies; or,
- Organizing or displaying third-party content.
Instead, the plaintiffs claimed that Salesforce breached its duty by enabling Backpage’s operations through its CRM tools. This duty was unrelated to Salesforce’s role as a publisher or speaker and fell outside Section 230’s protections.
Implications for Businesses
This decision underscores a critical limitation of Section 230 immunity: companies that provide tools or services enabling harmful conduct may face liability if their actions extend beyond the traditional publishing role. Businesses should carefully assess their relationships with clients and partners, particularly in industries with heightened regulatory and legal risks.
For businesses providing technology or operational support, this case highlights the importance of due diligence. Ensuring that your tools and services are not knowingly used for illegal activities is not only ethical but also essential for mitigating legal exposure.
What’s Next
The Fifth Circuit’s decision allows the claims against Salesforce to proceed, signaling that courts may take a narrower view of Section 230 immunity in certain contexts. This ruling is a reminder for all organizations to evaluate their practices, partnerships, and compliance efforts to avoid potential liabilities in an evolving legal landscape.
