LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – Reddit has moved to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges it profited off of child pornography.
A Jane Doe sued the message board website earlier this year, alleging it has taken “virtually no action” to address the posting of child porn. The service only instituted a policy against child porn in 2011 following controversy over portions of the site that featured minors engaged in sexual acts, the suit alleges.
The lawsuit calls Reddit a “safe haven” for such content. Reddit is alleging the plaintiff did not adequately alleged her claims, which include sex trafficking.
Jane Doe says after a relationship with a former boyfriend ended violently, he uploaded a sex tape he made when Doe was a minor to Reddit and other websites.
“She admits that Reddit, which is a network of user-driven online communities, took down the content posted to its site and also disabled the ex-boyfriend’s Reddit account,” lawyers for the company wrote.
“She nonetheless asserts that Reddit facilitated her ‘trafficking’ and the distribution of child sexual abuse material. If Plaintiff’s allegations about the ex-boyfriend are true, his actions constitute violations of multiple federal and state criminal laws, and certainly would support a civil claim against him by Plaintiff.
“But by seeking to hold Reddit liable for the acts and third-party content of her ex-boyfriend, Plaintiff is suing the wrong defendant. Reddit did not film or post the alleged videos.”
Reddit is represented by lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. In a 36-page motion to dismiss, they say:
-Jane Doe failed to allege she was trafficked;
-She did not allege Reddit participated in a trafficking venture with her ex-boyfriend; and
-She did not allege Reddit had specific knowledge of any trafficking of her.
She also can’t make claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and that the Communications Decency Act bars her lawsuit. That law says no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.
“Ultimately, claims like Plaintiff’s that relate to core publishing functions such as ‘reviewing, editing and deciding whether to publish or withdraw from publication third-party content’” are barred by the act, the motion says.