plaintiffs had to show that Reddit knowingly facilitated posting of CSEM.[23]III. The Ninth Circuit OpinionOn appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered the scope of FOSTA’s exception to Section 230 immunity for civil child sex trafficking claims.[24] The court opened with a blunt factual framing, stating that, as of 2021, when this suit was filed, there were numerous subreddits that explicitly marketed themselves as fora for CSEM, with names like /r/BestofYoungNSFW and /r/YoungGirlsGoneWild.[25] The court then gave a clear statement of the breadth of Section 230’s protections, “this provision immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties,” and an affirmation that this protection is “robust.”[26]The court outlined the multiple statutory provisions that were implicated in its analysis, first Section 230; then FOSTA, which amended Section 230; and then two sections of the TVPA that FOSTA incorporates, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 1595. In concert, the provisions mean that “websites are generally immune from liability for user-posted content, but that immunity does not cover sex trafficking claims if the conduct underlying the claim violates 18 U.S.C. § 1591.”[27] Reddit argued that a website may only be liable for its own criminal conduct, while the plaintiffs argued that a website may be liable as a beneficiary when someone else’s conduct violated the criminal statute.[28]To resolve the dispute, the Ninth Circuit considered the plain text of FOSTA, as well as the underlying provisions of the TVPA. Section 1591 of the TVPA makes it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in sex trafficking, while section 1595 creates a private right of action for victims of sex trafficking.[29] In its analysis, the court concluded that FOSTA’s plain text, and Supreme Court precedent interpreting a similar immunity exception, required the court to look to the elements of the “underlying” claim.[30] As to the underlying claim

Further to this, the company has faced investigations by the UK authorities and a potential investigation by the U.S. border authorities that could jeopardise the company’s ability to import into the U.S.In September 2021, the highest court in France paved the way for a building materials company to be prosecuted for complicity in crimes against humanity in Syria’s civil war, over allegations that the company’s Syrian subsidiary paid armed groups (including the Islamic State (IS)) via intermediaries to ensure that its supply chain and logistics remained operational at its factory in Syria during the early years of the country’s war. The French authorities’ investigation into the matter is still ongoing.In the U.S., since early 2019, victims of sex trafficking have brought dozens of lawsuits against hotels and other hospitality industry participants in federal courts nationwide, pursuant to Title 18 U.S. Code Section 1595(a), the civil remedy included in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7114 (“TVPA”), as amended. The TVPA prohibits a variety of practices, such as forced labor, debt slavery, and sex trafficking and also criminalizes attempts to engage in these activities.

chieved a significant victory on behalf of Nestlé USA after 16 years of hard-fought litigation when the Supreme Court held 8-1 that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply extraterritorially. Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021). But at the same time the Supreme Court was restricting the scope of liability under the ATS, plaintiffs’ attorneys were already looking toa relatively newstatute under which to bring similar claims: the TVPRA.At its core, the TVPRA is a criminal statute. It imposes enhanced criminal penalties for certain offenses related to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, sex trafficking, and forced labor. The statute also includes a civil remedies provision, which allows an individual who is a victim of a TVPRA violation 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” a TVPRA violation. 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).Some U.S. Plaintiffs’ attorneys who previously pursued ATS claims are increasingly turning to the TVPRA. Just as with the ATS, many of these lawsuits do not target the actual perpetrators of the alleged harms; instead, these attorneys sue multinational companies based on conduct happening abroad, often many levels removed in their supply chains. Just as with the ATS, plaintiffs have tried to use companies’ efforts to combat global problems against them in these suits, using them as a purported basis for claiming that companies are aware of human rights problems in their supply chains. And just as with the ATS, these cases threaten corporations with potential reputational harm. Hogan Lovells is at the forefront of defending these matters. Since our success in Nestlé, we have obtained significantdismissals in two district court cases seeking to hold several multinational companies in the technology and food sectors liable for alleged labor issues in their supply chains. Both cases are c

Thus far, franchisors have been successful in certain trial and appellate courts in arguing that Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) civil claims do not apply to franchisors solely because a franchise relationship exists. See 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).Last week, President Biden signed the Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act into law, which eliminates the statute of limitations for TVPRA civil claims brought by minors. See 18 U.S.C. § 2255.

The case was remanded back to the trial court and was settled just a few weeks ago. Now, the Canadian Senate is considering a Modern Slavery Act similar to the U.K. law that will require many companies that operate in Canada, including many U.S. companies, to report on international human rights issues in their supply chains and international operations.Meanwhile, in the U.S., a case is pending in federal court in Washington D.C. that was brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595 et seq., against several U.S.-based companies that rely upon the supply of cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The plaintiffs are children who claim to have worked in cobalt mines in the Congo.

It also provides the “sense of Congress” that websites have been “reckless” and “done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children and victims of force, fraud, and coercion.” FOSTA specifically amends CDA 230 to retroactively withdraw immunity from: (1) state criminal laws if the conduct would constitute federal sex trafficking crimes under 18 USC 1591 or 18 USC 2421A (and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the prostitution was targeted); and (2) civil suits under 18 USC 1595 brought by victims of sex trafficking. During debates over the bill, free speech advocates and even the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) expressed concern about FOSTA’s effects.

Under FOSTA Section 6, in any case where “the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected” by sex trafficking, the attorney general may bring a civil action against a person engaged in sex trafficking “on behalf of the residents of the State” in federal district court. FOSTA § 6 (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1595(d)).III. Criminalizing Intentional Promotion or Facilitation of Prostitution In addition to amending federal sex trafficking law, FOSTA creates a new federal crime, titled “Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking.”

Under FOSTA Section 6, in any case where “the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected” by sex trafficking, the attorney general may bring a civil action against a person engaged in sex trafficking “on behalf of the residents of the State” in federal district court. FOSTA § 6 (to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1595(d)).III. Criminalizing Intentional Promotion or Facilitation of ProstitutionIn addition to amending federal sex trafficking law, FOSTA creates a new federal crime, titled “Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking.”

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1581 et seq. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386, as amended, declares illegal the trafficking in persons, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, slavery and sex trafficking.18 USC § 1595 creates a private right of action in US federal court for victims of such conduct, allowing them to collect actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.Section 1596 of Title 18 establishes that the remedy applies extraterritorially. Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 The Interstate Wire Act of 1961 prohibiting the operation of certain types of betting businesses in the United States.The statute has been construed to be limited to betting on sporting events, and not to apply to other forms of online gambling.

Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1581 et seq. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-386, as amended, declares illegal the trafficking in persons, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, slavery and sex trafficking.18 USC § 1595 creates a private right of action in US federal court for victims of such conduct, allowing them to collect actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.Section 1596 of Title 18 establishes that the remedy applies extraterritorially. Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084 The Interstate Wire Act of 1961 prohibiting the operation of certain types of betting businesses in the United States.The statute has been construed to be limited to betting on sporting events, and not to apply to other forms of online gambling.