Ninth Circuit Reads FOSTA's Section 230 Carve-Out Narrowly

FOSTA, enacted in 2018, carved a hole in Section 230 for claims tied to sex trafficking, and plaintiffs have since tested how wide that hole is. In Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, A.S., No. 25-2424, the plaintiff sued the company behind an adult tube site, arguing that its hosting and promotion of user-uploaded material stripped it of immunity under the FOSTA exception.

The panel disagreed. To pierce Section 230 through FOSTA, the court held, a plaintiff must show the platform had actual knowledge of the specific trafficking venture and a causal link between the platform's own affirmative conduct furthering that venture and a benefit it received. Knowing, in a general sense, that some illegal content might appear on a large user-upload service does not satisfy that standard.

The decision continues a pattern in which courts read FOSTA's carve-out narrowly, leaving the statute on the books but limiting its practical bite against platforms. For sex workers and free-expression advocates who warned that FOSTA would chill lawful online activity while doing little to reach genuine traffickers, the ruling underscores the gap between the law's sweeping rhetoric and its courtroom reach. The panel included Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Gabriel P. Sanchez, with District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater sitting by designation.