Whether the exception to CDA immunity contained in 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A) is limited solely to Section 1595 claims where the defendant itself has committed a predicate violation of Section 1591

QUESTION PRESENTED The petition presents a statutory interpretation question that has tremendous consequences for the protection of minors against sex trafficking. Child pornography is the root cause of much of the sex trafficking that occurs in the world today, and it is primarily traded on the Internet, through websites that claim immunity from suit under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230. Since 2018, however, the CDA includes a categorical carve-out for sex-trafficking claims entitled “No Effect on Sex Trafficking Law,” stating that “nothing” in the CDA “shall be construed to impair or limit .. . any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of Title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Petitioners in this case brought precisely such aclaim. But despite the broad language of the CDA’s remedial exception, the Ninth Circuit panel held that it only extends to one subset of claims under Section 1595 based on a Section 1591 violation—only where the defendant’s conduct itself violated Section 1591—even though it is undisputed that under Section 1595, a defendant also may be culpable where the underlying Section 1591 violation was committed by a third party. This atextual interpretation of the CDA warrants review. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling, if it stands, would immunize a huge class of violators who play a role in the victimization of children. Prior to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, several lower courts had reached conflicting decisions on this question of statutory construction. See, e.g., Doe v. MindGeek USA Inc., 574 F. Supp. 3d 760 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (holding Section 230(e)(5)(A) applies to all Section 1595 claims (i) ll predicated on a third party’s violation of Section 1591); Doe v. Twitter, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 3d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (same); G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 2022 WL 1541408 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2022) (holding Section 230(e)(5)(A) applies to Section 1595 claims only if the defendant’s conduct violates Section 1591); J. B. v. G6 Hosp., LLC, 2021 WL 4079207 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021) (same); Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 3d 1242, 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (same). The question presented is: Whether the exception to CDA immunity contained in 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(5)(A)—which states “Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit--any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title’—is limited solely to Section 1595 claims where the defendant itself has committed a predicate violation of Section 1591, even though Section 1595 also makes a defendant liable where it “knowingly benefits” “from participation in a venture” with a third party whose conduct violated Section 1591. iii PARTIES The petitioners are Jane Does No. 1-6 & John Does No. 2, 3, and 5. The respondent is Reddit, Inc. DIRECTLY