SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) – Google is arguing it is not liable for the injuries suffered by a girl who was allegedly groomed and abused by a man on Snapchat after they met on Instagram.
The grooming included an exchange of pornographic photos, says a lawsuit brought May 2 in San Diego federal court brought under consumer protection and products liability laws and the Trafficking Victims Protections Act.
The plaintiff, known as L.W. in court papers, sued Snap, Apple and Google. In its June 30 motion to dismiss, Google says L.W. can’t prove standing to sue it because she can’t allege her injuries were “fairly traceable” to any of Google’s conduct.
The apps at issue were available for download on Google Play.
“But there is no allegation that any of the third parties involved in Plaintiff’s abuse obtained the Chitter app from Google Play,” the motion says. “Accordingly, even taking the allegations in the complaint as true, there is no causal connection whatsoever between Google’s operation of Play and the use of Chitter to distribute (child sexual abuse material) depicting Plaintiff.”
L.W. says from age 12 to 16, she was groomed and abused by a man named B.P. on Snapchat.
"B.P. would ridicule and berate her if L.W. refused and would compliment her when she would comply," the lawsuit says. "B.P. firs tasked L.W. for photos and videos in her underwear, then photos in the shower, and eventually photos and videos of L.W. depicting L.W.'s face and body, as well as exposed breasts and vaginal area.
"The videos include L.W. masturbating and penetrating her vagina with foreign objects at B.P.'s instructions and requests."
L.W. says she tried to block him multiple times, but he would contact her through Instagram or with a fake Snapchat account. B.P. used Snapchat to sexually abuse others, the suit says, from his location in the Marine Corps Base Camp Pefndleton.
The suit says Snapchat fosters a sense of impunity for people like B.P., while Apple and Google steer users to an app called Chitter on which the pornographic materials were posted.
“If the bad actors did not use Google Play, Google’s policies could not possibly have played any role in bringing harm to Plaintiff,” the motion to dismiss says.
“And without establishing any such link between Google’s actions and her injuries, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert any of her claims against Google. The court need – and indeed should – go no further to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.”