I previously described this case:

Omegle permits real-time video and textual content chats with customers assigned at random. The case comes to an 11 12 months outdated woman who was once a first-time Omegle person. The criticism alleges {that a} malefactor John Doe manipulated her into disrobing so he may just make screengrabs.

The appellate courtroom refers to Doe’s conduct as “capping.” It calls those info “horrific” and says they “underscore that the web on the whole and social media particularly pose grave dangers to kids.” A reminder that Segment 230 circumstances frequently require the judges to use the immunity to tragic info.

The courtroom brushed aside the case on Segment 230 grounds. The eleventh Circuit affirms, however is predicated best in part on Segment 230 grounds.

Figuring out CSAM Ownership

The district courtroom brushed aside the CSAM civil declare on Segment 230 grounds. The bulk disregards that means and chooses as a substitute to disregard the declare for Omegle’s loss of scienter. This can be a wonder transfer since the district courtroom by no means analyzed the scienter factor in any respect (Segment 230 mooted it). A dissent would have despatched the query again to the district courtroom to guage Omegle’s scienter (in particular, whether or not it had “planned indifference”).

The bulk says: “the operative criticism does now not allege that Omegle.com ever possessed or accessed the pictures that John Doe recorded…there are not any allegations that may make stronger the realization that Omegle.com knowingly possessed or accessed John Doe’s recording understanding it was once kid pornography.” The bulk distinguishes Doe v. MG Freesites since the defendant if that’s the case hosted the video and allegedly exercised different content material moderation steps round it.

FOSTA

The plaintiff invoked the FOSTA exception to Segment 230, which required the courtroom to make a decision if plaintiffs to turn the defendant had the upper scienter required by way of 1591 or the decrease scienter of 1595.

The eleventh Circuit has the same opinion with the ninth Circuit in Doe v. Reddit that 1591’s upper scienter requirement applies to the 230 exception:

We grasp that the FOSTA exception to phase 230 for civil intercourse trafficking claims calls for that plaintiffs allege and end up exact wisdom….

The word “constitutes a contravention of phase 1591” isn’t ambiguous. The simplest studying is that FOSTA allows civil intercourse trafficking claims towards on-line platforms best when a platform’s behavior violates the legal TVPRA provision.

The courtroom additionally as it should be notes the legislative historical past appearing that the Senate Trade Committee deliberately amended SESTA so as to add the upper scienter requirement.

The criticism best alleged Omegle’s optimistic wisdom at maximum, now not exact wisdom. Due to this fact, the plaintiff didn’t qualify for the FOSTA exception to Segment 230.

Implications

Omegle exited the industry a year ago, making this a legacy case. It’s much more of a legacy as a result of Omegle’s suggest has stopped representing Omegle. When the courtroom issued this opinion, Omegle was once self-representing as a professional se LLC–which isn’t approved by way of courtroom laws.

The 1591/1595 divide is prime to FOSTA workarounds to Segment 230. The Senate Trade Committee expressly changed FOSTA so as to add the upper scienter after its emotionally-wrenching SESTA listening to (certainly one of my least favourite skilled moments of my profession). For individuals who sat thru or reviewed the listening to, there is not any doubt what the Senate Trade Committee was once seeking to do–i.e., elevate the scienter bar. But, its wording was once bulky sufficient that plaintiffs have nonetheless sought to overturn that amendment–and have got some district courtroom judges to agree alongside the way in which. If/when the appellate courts uniformly determine that the 1591 scienter is needed to avoid Segment 230, I be expecting we’ll see a decline within the choice of FOSTA circumstances.

Case quotation: M.H. v. Omegle.com, LLC, 2024 WL 5040478 (eleventh Cir. Dec. 9, 2024). I filed a rebuttal file on this case within the district courtroom complaints, however the courtroom granted the movement to disregard with out taking into consideration any of the skilled reviews.

Extra SESTA/FOSTA-Comparable Posts

* Section 230 Immunizes OnlyFans for User-Uploaded Video–Doe v. Fenix
* Five Decisions Illustrate How Section 230 Is Fading Fast
* Section 230 Preempts FOSTA Claim–Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic
* Instagram Defeats Lawsuit Claiming It Was a “Breeding Ground” for Sex Traffickers–Doe v. Backpage
* The 7th Circuit’s Section 230 Jurisprudence’s Impact on FOSTA Cases
* Grindr Defeats FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Grindr
* Twitter Defeats FOSTA Case Over CSAM–Doe v. Twitter
* DC Circuit Upholds FOSTA’s Constitutionality (By Narrowing It)–Woodhull v. U.S.
* Section 230 Immunizes Snap, Even if It’s “Inherently Dangerous”–L.W. v. Snap
* The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable)
* Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. Reddit
* More Evidence that FOSTA Benefited No One
* Omegle Denied Section 230 Dismissal–AM v. Omegle
* Section 230 Helps Craigslist Defeat Sex Trafficking Case–LH v. Marriott
* Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–GG v. Salesforce
* Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Fails–Woodhull v. US
* Catching Up on a FOSTA Case–ML v. Craigslist
* Facebook Loses Jurisdictional Ruling in Texas Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Facebook v. Doe
* Justice Thomas Really, REALLY Wants Section 230 Repealed (Even If He Has to Do It Himself)
* Section 230 Immunizes TikTok for User-Posted Videos–Day v. TikTok
* So Many Unanswered Empirical Questions About FOSTA
* Another Problematic FOSTA Ruling–Doe v. Pornhub
* Catching Up on Recent FOSTA Developments (None of Them Good)
* Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. Omegle
* To No One’s Surprise, FOSTA Is Confounding Judges–J.B. v. G6
* FOSTA Claim Can Proceed Against Twitter–Doe v. Twitter
* FOSTA Survives Constitutional Challenge–US v. Martono
* 2H 2020 Quick Links, Part 4 (FOSTA)
* Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist
* Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Against Craigslist Moves Forward–ML v. Craigslist
* Section 230 Preempts Another FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Kik
* Section 230 Protects Craigslist from Sex Trafficking Claims, Despite FOSTA–JB v. Craigslist
* Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court
* Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. Craigslist
* 2H 2019 and Q1 2020 Quick Links, Part 3 (FOSTA/Backpage)
* New Paper Explains How FOSTA Devastated Male Sex Workers
* FOSTA Constitutional Challenge Revived–Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. US
* New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Salesforce
* Latest Linkwrap on FOSTA’s Aftermath
* Section 230 Doesn’t End Lawsuit Claiming Facebook Facilitated Sex Trafficking–Doe v. Facebook
* New Essay: The Complicated Story of FOSTA and Section 230
* Who Benefited from FOSTA? (Spoiler: Probably No One)
* FOSTA’s Political Curse
* FOSTA Doesn’t Help Pro Se Litigant’s Defamation Claim Against Facebook
* Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Dismissed for Lack of Standing (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* An Update on the Constitutional Court Challenge to FOSTA–Woodhull Freedom v. US (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down”
* Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v. US (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap)
* More Aftermath from the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’
* ‘Worst of Both Worlds’ FOSTA Signed Into Law, Completing Section 230’s Evisceration
* Backpage Loses Another Section 230 Motion (Again Without SESTA/FOSTA)–Florida Abolitionists v. Backpage
* District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. Backpage
* More on the Unconstitutional Retroactivity of ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Senate Passes ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Linkwrap)
* Why FOSTA’s Restriction on Prostitution Promotion Violates the First Amendment (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* SESTA’s Sponsors Still Don’t Understand Section 230 (As They Are About to Eviscerate It)
* Can the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ Be Salvaged? Perhaps…and You Can Help (URGENT CALL TO ACTION)
* Congress Probably Will Ruin Section 230 This Week (SESTA/FOSTA Updates)
* What’s New With SESTA/FOSTA (January 17, 2018 edition)
* New House Bill (Substitute FOSTA) Has More Promising Approach to Regulating Online Sex Trafficking
* My testimony on the Space Power & Trade Committee: Balancing Section 230 and Anti-Sex Trafficking Initiatives
* How SESTA Undermines Section 230’s Good Samaritan Provisions
* Manager’s Amendment for SESTA Slightly Improves a Still-Terrible Bill
* Another Human Trafficking Expert Raises Concerns About SESTA (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Another SESTA Linkwrap (Week of October 30)
* Recent SESTA Developments (A Linkwrap)
* Section 230’s Applicability to ‘Inconsistent’ State Laws (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* An Overview of Congress’ Pending Legislation on Sex Trafficking (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* The DOJ’s Busts of MyRedbook & Rentboy Show How Backpage Might Be Prosecuted (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Problems With SESTA’s Retroactivity Provision (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* My Senate Testimony on SESTA + SESTA Hearing Linkwrap
* Debunking Some Myths About Section 230 and Sex Trafficking (Visitor Weblog Put up)
* Congress Is About To Ruin Its Online Free Speech Masterpiece (Cross-Post)
* Backpage Executives Must Face Money Laundering Charges Despite Section 230–People v. Ferrer
* How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (visitor weblog put up)
* Sen. Portman Says SESTA Doesn’t Affect the Good Samaritan Defense. He’s Wrong
* Senate’s “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017”–and Section 230’s Imminent Evisceration
* The “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230
* WARNING: Draft “No Immunity for Sex Traffickers Online Act” Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230
* The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. § 230’s Immunity