Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 1 of 60 PageID #:1677
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`SHORT RECORD
`NO. 22-2621
`FILED 09/15/2022
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`CHICAGO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`G.G., et al.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-02335
`§
`§ Honorable Andrea R. Wood
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`Notice is hereby given that G.G. and Deanna Rose, the Plaintiffs in the above-named
`
`case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the
`
`Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 105) and Judgment (Dkt. 106), entered May 16,
`
`2022, and from the Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
`
`Under Rule 59(e) (Dkt. 114), entered August 15, 2022.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 2 of 60 PageID #:1678
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kenneth T. Fibich
`
`Kenneth T. Fibich (Pro Hac Vice)
`(TX Bar No. 06952600)
`Sara J. Fendia (Pro Hac Vice)
`(TX Bar No. 06898800)
`FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS
`1150 Bissonnet Street
`Houston, Texas 77005
`Telephone: (713) 751-0025
`Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
`tfibich@fibichlaw.com
`sfendia@fibichlaw.com
`
`Peter J. Flowers (IL # 06210847)
`MEYERS AND FLOWERS, LLC
`3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St.
`Charles, Illinois 60174
`Telephone: (630) 232-6333
`Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
`pjf@meyers-flowers.com
`
`Warren W. Harris (Pro Hac Vice)
`(TX Bar No. 09108080)
`BRACEWELL LLP
`711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 221-2300
`Facsimile: (800) 404-3970
`warren.harris@bracewell.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 3 of 60 PageID #:1679
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of this Notice of Appeal was served on the following via the Court’s
`
`ECF system on the 13th day of September 2022.
`
`Patricia Brown Holmes
`pholmes@rshc-law.com
`Lucas T. Rael
`lrael@rshc-law.com
`RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILLA LLP
`70 W. Madision St., Suite 2900
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Telephone: (312) 472-8700
`Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
`
`Kristin A. Linsley
`klinsley@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, California 94105-0921
`Telephone: (415) 393-8395
`Facsimile: (415) 374-8471
`
`
`Bradley J. Hamburger
`bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
`Telephone: (213) 229-7658
`Facsimile: (213) 229-6658
`
`
`Veronica S. Moyé
`vmoye@gibsondunn.com
`Andrew LeGrand
`alegrand@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 698-3100
`Facsimile: (214) 571-2900
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Warren W. Harris
`Warren W. Harris
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 4 of 60 PageID #:1680
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3
`Eastern Division
`
`G G (a minor), et al.
`
`v.
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc., et al.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 1:20−cv−02335
`Honorable Andrea R. Wood
`
`NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
`
`This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, May 16, 2022:
`
` MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: For the reasons stated in
`the accompany Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant's motion to dismiss the third
`amended complaint [63] is granted. The third amended complaint is dismissed with
`prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant. Civil case
`terminated. Mailed notice (dal, )
`
`ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
`generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
`criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
`refer to it for additional information.
`
`For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
`web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 5 of 60 PageID #:1681
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`G.G. (a minor), et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`No. 20-cv-02335
`
`Judge Andrea R. Wood
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`When G.G. was thirteen years old, she ran away from home and fell into the hands of a
`
`sex trafficker. The trafficker posted advertisements for sex with G.G. on the classified ad website
`
`run by Backpage.com (“Backpage”).1 As alleged in the complaint, Backpage did not just allow
`
`but encouraged these types of illegal ads, to the point of becoming a dominant force in online sex
`
`trafficking. Beginning in 2013, Backpage contracted with Defendant Salesforce.com, Inc.
`
`(“Salesforce”) to provide it with customer relationship management (“CRM”) business software
`
`and support. That relationship allegedly helped grow Backpage’s operations, including promoting
`
`the business of sex traffickers. G.G. and her mother, Deanna Rose, (together, “Plaintiffs”) have
`
`now sued Salesforce pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595, alleging that, through its contracts with
`
`Backpage, Salesforce violated the federal anti-trafficking laws by knowingly benefiting from and
`
`participating in a venture that it knew, or should have known, was engaged in illegal sex
`
`trafficking. Salesforce has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety pursuant to
`
`
`1 The Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint, includes Backpage as a defendant.
`Before Backpage answered the Third Amended Complaint, however, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion
`voluntarily to dismiss Backpage from this suit. (Dkt. No. 101.)
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 6 of 60 PageID #:1682
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 63.) For the reasons given below, the Court
`
`grants the motion.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`For purposes of Salesforce’s motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded
`
`facts in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) and views those facts in the light most favorable
`
`to Plaintiffs as the non-moving parties. Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614,
`
`618 (7th Cir. 2007). The TAC alleges as follows.
`
`
`
`Backpage was established in 2004 as an online marketplace for various goods and
`
`services. (TAC ¶ 16, Dkt. No. 62.) Among other things, Backpage allowed classified ads for sex.
`
`(Id.) In 2008, Backpage’s primary competitor, Craigslist, made it harder for users to post ads for
`
`sex on its platform. Capitalizing on the displaced ad volume, Backpage entered into a period of
`
`explosive growth, soon becoming the most popular online classified site for adult advertisements
`
`and deriving the vast majority (up to 99%) of its revenue from such ads. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 23–24.)
`
`
`
`Salesforce is the world’s top CRM platform, selling software to help companies manage
`
`their relationships with customers, improve profitability, and streamline processes. (Id. ¶¶ 29–30.)
`
`Specifically, Salesforce sells “software as a service” (“SaaS”) technology consisting of a set of
`
`applications that, among other things, can help businesses manage sales and marketing functions,
`
`assist with customer service and support, provide customer data integration and support, permit
`
`both internal communications and communications with customers, offer business intelligence
`
`analytics, and process other forms of data. (Id. ¶ 31.) The Salesforce platform also has a
`
`“customer org”—that is, a portal that serves as a point of interaction between Salesforce and its
`
`customers. (Id. ¶ 32.) The customer org is confidential to each Salesforce customer and consists of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 7 of 60 PageID #:1683
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`that customer’s users, data, and automation. (Id.) Additionally, to help its customers achieve their
`
`business goals, Salesforce also provides personalized support. (Id. ¶ 33.)
`
`As Backpage grew, it required more support and better CRM tools and capabilities to keep
`
`up with customer demand and scale its platform. (Id. ¶ 35.) To meet this need, Backpage
`
`contracted with Salesforce in 2013. (Id. ¶ 37.) As set forth in the Master Service Agreements
`
`between Salesforce and Backpage, Salesforce retained the right to delete or restrict access to
`
`Backpage’s customer org if Backpage’s actions or content was tortious. (Id. ¶ 47.) During their
`
`negotiations in November 2013, Backpage’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Carl Ferrer and
`
`another high-level executive met with a certified Salesforce Consulting Partner to assess
`
`Backpage’s needs and goals as a business and to determine how Salesforce could help. (Id. ¶ 53.)
`
`An in-house Salesforce account executive continued those conversations, which eventually
`
`culminated in a deal between the companies. (Id. ¶ 54.) Over the next five years, Salesforce sold
`
`Backpage access to several products, including the premium “Enterprise Edition” of its CRM
`
`software. (Id.) An in-house Salesforce executive recommended the Enterprise Edition, which is
`
`described as “fully customizable.” (Id. ¶ 45.) And, in 2015, Salesforce provided the technological
`
`infrastructure for Backpage to move its business overseas, allegedly to help it evade law
`
`enforcement scrutiny in the United States. (Id. ¶ 46.) Overall, Backpage purchased a new
`
`application, requested support, or renewed a contract with Salesforce on at least five occasions.
`
`(Id. ¶ 48.) Each of those times, Backpage consulted with Salesforce about how best to assess and
`
`meet its operational needs. (Id.)
`
`Using the sophisticated CRM tools, as well as platform support, provided by Salesforce,
`
`Backpage was able to scale its operations and expand its business. (Id. ¶¶ 39–42.) The nature of
`
`those operations—and Salesforce’s knowledge of them—are at the center of the present lawsuit.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 8 of 60 PageID #:1684
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Backpage was primarily (or even solely) a sex-trafficking business. As early
`
`as 2008, Backpage had been publicly identified by law enforcement and state and federal officials
`
`as being associated with sex trafficking. (Id. ¶ 18.) And over the next decade, Backpage faced
`
`calls to remove its adult services section by, among others, a group of state attorneys general.
`
`Backpage refused, resisting efforts to shut down its site on First Amendment grounds. (Id. ¶ 21.)
`
`Yet, even in the midst of persistent controversy and allegations regarding sex trafficking on
`
`Backpage, Salesforce continued to provide software and support to Backpage throughout this
`
`period. (Id. ¶ 50.)
`
`Eventually, Backpage and its corporate leadership faced federal criminal charges. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 25–26.) Backpage’s CEO pleaded guilty to charges that he conspired to facilitate prostitution
`
`using a facility in interstate or foreign commerce and engaged in money laundering, while the
`
`corporation pleaded guilty to conspiring to engage in money laundering. (Id. ¶¶ 25 n.17, 26 n.18;
`
`see also Plea Agreement, United States v. Ferrer, No. 2:18-cr-00464-DJH (D. Ariz. Apr. 5,
`
`2018); Plea Agreement, United States v. Backpage, No. 2:18-cr-00465-DJH (D. Ariz. Apr. 5,
`
`2018.) As part of its plea agreement with the government, Backpage admitted to having operated
`
`as a site for the sale of illegal sex and to receiving benefits from the sex trafficking of minors. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 26–27.)
`
`G.G. was one of those sex-trafficking victims. In 2016, when she was thirteen years old,
`
`G.G. ran away from home and was soon picked up by her trafficker. (Id. ¶¶ 74, 76.) While
`
`searching for her daughter, Rose found an ad featuring G.G. on Backpage’s Escort Page. (Id.)
`
`Rose notified Backpage that G.G., a child, was being advertised for sex on their website and
`
`requested that the ads be taken down. (Id.) Backpage, however, did not remove the ads and
`
`instead merely referred Rose to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (Id.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 9 of 60 PageID #:1685
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`Although G.G. is no longer under the control of her trafficker, she suffered significant physical
`
`and emotional injuries as a result of her tragic ordeal and still suffers from the effects of being
`
`trafficked at such a young age. (Id. ¶ 79.)
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations
`
`
`
`to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
`
`(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In evaluating a motion to dismiss,
`
`the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences from those
`
`facts in the plaintiff’s favor. Bell v. City of Country Club Hills, 841 F.3d 713, 716 (7th Cir. 2016).
`
`While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, there “must be enough to raise a
`
`right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545.“A claim has facial
`
`plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
`
`inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
`
`Federal law provides for both criminal sanctions against sex traffickers and civil remedies
`
`for victims of sex trafficking. Relevant to this case, 18 U.S.C. § 1591 creates both primary and
`
`secondary liability for the sex trafficking of minors, and 18 U.S.C. § 1595 allows any victim of
`
`such trafficking to sue for damages. Specifically, § 1595 allows victims of sex trafficking
`
`violations under § 1591 to “bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly
`
`benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that
`
`person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of [§ 1591].” 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1595(a). Beyond the requirement that there be an underlying violation of § 1591, a plaintiff
`
`seeking to impose liability under § 1595 must establish that the defendant (1) knowingly benefited
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 10 of 60 PageID #:1686
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`from (2) participating in a venture that (3) the person knew or should have known violated
`
`§ 1591. See M.A. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 959, 969 (S.D. Oh. 2019).
`
`Here, Plaintiffs seek to hold Salesforce liable under § 1591 for the trafficking of G.G. by
`
`her trafficker as facilitated by Backpage. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that a sex trafficker used
`
`ads on Backpage to traffic G.G., a minor, in violation of § 1591. Plaintiffs further allege that
`
`Backpage facilitated and assisted the use of its site by sex traffickers such as the one who
`
`trafficked G,G., and that Salesforce, in turn, helped Backpage expand its business with those sex
`
`traffickers. Salesforce asks this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint against it for two reasons:
`
`first, Salesforce contends that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the affirmative defense to liability
`
`under § 1595 provided by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230;
`
`and second, Salesforce argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state an actionable claim under 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1595. As the defense under § 230, if applicable, is determinative and would warrant
`
`dismissal with prejudice, the Court begins its analysis there.
`
`I.
`
`Section 230
`
`Section 230 acts as a bar against liability for certain types of claims against certain
`
`defendants—specifically, it provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service
`
`shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
`
`content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Thus, so long as a defendant can establish that it is (1) a
`
`provider or user of an interactive computer service and (2) the claims against it seek to treat it as a
`
`publisher of a third party’s content, § 230 will bar those claims. See Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ.
`
`Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 671 (7th Cir. 2008) (explaining that
`
`“[w]hat § 230(c)(1) says is that an online information system must not ‘be treated as the publisher
`
`or speaker of any information provided by’ someone else” for purposes of establishing liability).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 11 of 60 PageID #:1687
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`Specifically in the context of sex trafficking claims, including under § 1595, courts have found
`
`that § 230 precludes liability where the allegations are predicated on the posting of user content—
`
`that is, the advertisements trafficking the plaintiffs. See, e.g., M.A. ex rel. P.K. v. Vill. Voice
`
`Media Hldgs, LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d. 1041, 1052, 1056 (holding that § 230 barred claims against
`
`Backpage because there was “no allegation that Backpage was responsible for the development of
`
`any portion of the content of the [sex trafficker’s] posted ads or specifically encouraged the
`
`development of the offensive nature of that content.”). Section 230’s protection against such
`
`claims, however, is not absolute—as relevant here, Congress amended § 230 through the Allow
`
`States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (“FOSTA”) to explicitly exempt certain
`
`kinds of sex trafficking claims. FOSTA, Pub. L. No. 115-164, 132 Stat. 1253 (2018). As a result,
`
`§ 230(e)(5)(A) now clarifies that “nothing in this section . . . shall be construed to impair or limit
`
`any claim in a civil action brought under [§ 1595], if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes
`
`a violation of [§ 1591].”
`
`Section 230 functions as an affirmative defense. See, Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655,
`
`657 (7th Cir. 2003); Bonilla v. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., No. 20-C-07390, 2021 WL
`
`5795306, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Typically, the existence of a potential affirmative defense does
`
`not “render the claim for relief invalid,” and “courts should usually refrain from granting Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motions” on that basis. Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners, 682 F.3d 687, 690
`
`(7th Cir. 2012). However, “[a]n exception applies when the allegations of the complaint set forth
`
`everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense.” Hyson USA, Inc. v. Hyson 2U, Ltd., 821
`
`F.3d 935, 939 (7th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). And courts often address the
`
`question of § 230’s applicability on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Marshall’s Locksmith Serv. Inc.
`
`v. Google, LLC, 925 F.3d 1263, 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of a complaint on
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 12 of 60 PageID #:1688
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`§ 230 grounds and citing cases in which courts had acted similarly). As the D.C. Circuit explained
`
`in Marshall’s Locksmith Service, Inc., invocation of § 230 immunity in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
`
`“[c]onsistent with Congress’ intent to confer broad immunity for the re-publication of third-party
`
`content.” Id.; see also Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 254 (4th
`
`Cir. 2009) (“Section 230 immunity, like other forms of immunity, is generally accorded effect at
`
`the first logical point in the litigation process.”). Still, for a defendant to raise the defense at the
`
`motion to dismiss stage successfully, “plaintiff[s] must affirmatively plead [themselves] out of
`
`court.” Hyson USA, 821 F.3d at 939 (internal quotation marks omitted). Salesforce contends that
`
`Plaintiffs here have done just that, arguing that the allegations of the TAC unambiguously
`
`establish that § 230 precludes Plaintiffs’ claims against it and that no exception to § 230’s
`
`protections apply.
`
`A.
`
`Salesforce as an Interactive Computer Service
`
`First, Salesforce asserts that it qualifies for § 230’s protections because it is a provider of
`
`an “interactive computer service.” Section 230 defines “interactive computer service” as “any
`
`information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access
`
`by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides
`
`access to the Internet.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2). Salesforce argues that it falls under the definition of
`
`“access software provider,” which is defined as “a provider of software (including client or server
`
`software) or enabling tools which do any one or more of the following: (a) filter, screen, allow, or
`
`disallow content; (b) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or (c) transmit, receive, display,
`
`forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(4).
`
`Indeed, applying the plain language of the statutory definition to the allegations in the
`
`TAC, Salesforce plainly qualifies as an “interactive computer service.” At oral argument on this
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 13 of 60 PageID #:1689
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`motion, Plaintiffs conceded that Salesforce is a software company, and the complaint alleges that
`
`“Backpage paid the money that it earned from trafficking to Salesforce in exchange for the
`
`Salesforce technology and support necessary for Backpage to operate and expand its business.”
`
`(TAC ¶ 77.) Looking further into details of the complaint, the support Salesforce provided
`
`Backpage involved the provision of technological capabilities—specifically, software that
`
`allowed Backpage employees to analyze and digest customer data as well as applications
`
`providing for the transmission of both internal employee communications and external customer
`
`outreach and support.2 Plaintiffs’ claims can best be summarized thusly: “Salesforce provided
`
`support to Backpage in the use of [Salesforce’s sophisticated software and related] technologies
`
`and had knowledge of the manner in which Backpage operated with these enhanced capabilities.”
`
`
`2 The following allegations are representative of how Plaintiffs’ claims against Salesforce are predicated
`upon capabilities provided by Salesforce’s software. Plaintiffs allege that Salesforce acted:
`
`
`By “[p]roviding, assisting, supporting, and facilitating Backpage with capabilities and support for
`direct marketing campaigns, coupled with information gathering such as tracking clicks and
`tracking internet activity of the sex traffickers.” (TAC ¶ 87(c).)
`
`By “[p]roviding, assisting, supporting, and facilitating more personalized outreach with
`automation using ‘dynamic content’ and automated messaging to target traffickers and sex
`buyers.” (Id. ¶ 87(d).)
`
`By “[p]roviding, assisting, supporting, and facilitating account planning including customer
`follow up, account reminders, modification of marketing and sales plans, and cross-function
`customer service capabilities to improve outreach and services to traffickers.” (Id. ¶ 87(h).)
`
`By “[p]roviding, assisting, supporting, and facilitating a custom Application Programming
`Interface (API) for use by Backpage employees, which is a software intermediary that allows two
`applications to talk to each other. This capability was for use by Backpage and did not enable
`computer access by the public or non-Backpage personnel.” (Id. ¶ 87(i).)
`
`By “[p]roviding, assisting, supporting, and facilitating efficiency enhanced with automation, such
`as cutting the time it takes to email and nurture leads, scoring leads using customer parameters set
`by the customer using artificial intelligence (AI) and handling customer questions using
`automation such as chatbots.” (Id. ¶ 87(o).)
`
`What all these allegations have in common is that they describe capabilities provided by Salesforce’s
`software and utilized by Backpage rather than actions taken by Salesforce itself.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 14 of 60 PageID #:1690
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`(TAC ¶ 87(b).) Put differently, Salesforce, through its software, provided multiple users access to
`
`a set of enabling tools that allow those users to analyze, organize, arrange, transmit, and display
`
`content provided by a third-party (here, Backpage). This description, which aligns with the
`
`statutory definition, unambiguously establishes that Salesforce is an “interactive computer
`
`service.”
`
`Nonetheless, Plaintiffs argue that Salesforce has not established that it is an interactive
`
`computer service because it was not involved in the management of content posted to Backpage.
`
`Instead, Plaintiffs contend, Salesforce only managed relationships between Backpage and its
`
`customers—most of whom, Plaintiffs maintain, were sex traffickers. But managing those
`
`relationships did require Salesforce to analyze content—content provided by Backpage about its
`
`customers. (See, e.g., TAC ¶ 87(f) (alleging that Salesforce “provid[ed], assist[ed], support[ed],
`
`and facilitat[ed] surveillance and analysis of customer and user activity with regard to access to
`
`ads”).)
`
`To avoid this result, Plaintiffs ask the Court to read an additional requirement into the
`
`statutory definition of interactive service provider. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to take the
`
`position that § 230 only covers providers who host publicly accessible platforms. Salesforce’s
`
`applications, of course, were only available internally to Backpage employees. But nothing in
`
`either the statutory text or case law supports this view. It is true, as Plaintiffs note, that § 230 most
`
`commonly has been applied to bar liability for defendants who host public platforms. See, e.g.,
`
`Bennett v. Google, LLC, 882 F.3d 1163, 1167–68 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (applying § 230 to bar claims
`
`against a public internet search engine); Klayman v. Zuckerberg, 753 F.3d 1354, 1356–58 (D.C.
`
`Cir. 2014) (applying § 230 to bar claims against a social networking website). But the mere fact
`
`that the defendants that have successfully involved § 230 to avoid liability have been publicly
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 15 of 60 PageID #:1691
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`accessible does not mean that such accessibility is a statutory requirement. See, e.g., Fields v.
`
`Twitter, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1116, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (“[A] number of courts have applied
`
`the CDA to bar claims predicated on a defendant’s transmission of nonpublic messages, and have
`
`done so without questioning whether the CDA applies in such circumstances.” (citing cases)),
`
`aff’d on other grounds, 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018)).
`
`Zango v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc., 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009), to which both Plaintiffs and
`
`Salesforce cite, is instructive. In Zango, the plaintiff “propose[d] a gloss on ‘interactive computer
`
`service’ that would construe a computer service as ‘interactive’ only if it enables people to access
`
`the Internet or access content found on the Internet.” Id. at 1175. Based on that construction, the
`
`defendant, which distributed malware software, would not fall under § 230’s definition. Id. at
`
`1172. The Ninth Circuit, however, “decline[d] to read the statute so narrowly,” explaining that,
`
`“[a]s written, § 230 does not limit the definition of ‘interactive computer service’ to services that
`
`provide access to the Internet; rather, its singular requirement is for ‘access by multiple users to a
`
`computer server.’” Id. at 1175–76 (quoting § 230(f)(2)). The Court finds this analysis persuasive.
`
`After all, if an interactive computer service is defined as “including specifically a service or
`
`system that provides access to the Internet,” it is not necessarily limited to such services. 47
`
`U.S.C. § 230(f)(2). And in any event, as alleged, Salesforce does provide access to its applications
`
`through the Internet. (See TAC ¶ 45 n.20 (citing to “Sales Cloud Pricing” when describing the
`
`software edition used by Backpage).)
`
`Still, Plaintiffs insist that because Salesforce was not involved in managing the content
`
`underlying their claims—the ads posted on Backpage by G.G.’s sex trafficker—§ 230’s
`
`protections cannot apply to Salesforce. According to Plaintiffs’ reading, § 230’s references to
`
`“content” must be understood not as content generally but rather as the content underlying the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 16 of 60 PageID #:1692
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`claim against the defendant. Using this logic, Backpage, as the actual host of the content in
`
`question, would be considered a provider of interactive computer services, while Salesforce,
`
`whose applications supported Backpage’s internal operations, would not. But the text of § 230
`
`imposes no such requirement—an interactive computer service must simply permit users to
`
`interact with content, without any reference to what content. Without a textual basis or supporting
`
`case law, the Court declines to impose unilaterally a requirement that whether a defendant is an
`
`“interactive computer service” under § 230 depends on the nature of the claims against it.
`
`Plaintiffs further assert that, at the very least, it is too soon to decide the issue of whether
`
`Salesforce qualifies as an interactive computer service. Plaintiffs contend that even if the Court is
`
`unable to hold that Salesforce is not an interactive computer service as a matter of law, discovery
`
`is still necessary to resolve the question of whether Salesforce in fact is one. But the allegations
`
`of the complaint make clear that Salesforce’s technology allows users (Backpage employees) to
`
`manipulate content in a variety of ways, including by analyzing and organizing customer data and
`
`transmitting messages between Backpage and potential customers. When questioned during oral
`
`argument about the benefits of allowing limited discovery on this issue, Plaintiffs suggested that it
`
`could provide more insight into what Salesforce’s software was doing. Yet the Plaintiffs already
`
`have provided a thorough overview of Salesforce’s technology in the TAC, suggesting that they
`
`are already well-acquainted with the capabilities of the software. Similarly, the TAC contains
`
`detailed factual allegations regarding discussions between Salesforce and Backpage executives,
`
`including quotations from emails between Backpage and individuals associated with Salesforce.
`
`Given the detailed allegations already contained within the complaint, as well as Plaintiffs
`
`inability to specify how discovery would shift the analysis, the Court finds it possible to rule on
`
`this issue without further inquiry.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-02335 Document #: 117 Filed: 09/15/22 Page 17 of 60 PageID #:1693
`Case: 22-2621 Document: 1-1 Filed: 09/15/2022 Pages: 57
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court holds that, as a matter of law
`
`based on the allegations of the TAC, Salesforce is an interactive computer service.
`
`B.
`
`Salesforce as a Publisher
`
`Section 230 does not, however, provide a complete defense for any type of claim against
`
`an interactive computer service. Craigslist, 519 F.3d at 669–70 (explaining that “§ 230(c) as a