Pornhub, Mindgeek Can’t Evade Child Porn Proposed Class Suit (1)

Pornhub and its parent company Mindgeek must keep facing a proposed class action from a victim of childhood sex trafficking after a district court ruled they weren’t entitled to summary judgment Thursday.

The domains must continue facing the then-minor victim’s allegations that they violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and federal statutes prohibiting the possession and distribution of child pornography, according to an opinion and order. The defendants’ bid for an early victory was denied by Judge L. Scott Coogler in the US District Court for the Northern District for Alabama.

“In sum, because defendants materially contributed to and developed the illegal content, Section 230(c) does not insulate defendants from liability,” Coogler said.

The plaintiff, who is identified as Jane Doe, alleges that videos of her engaging in sex acts when she was 16 years old were uploaded and platformed on Pornhub, according to the opinion. One of the videos allegedly remained on the website for more than two years and—despite already receiving take down requests from users—was only removed once a police investigation began in 2020.

The domain owners argue that they are shielded from the claims under Section 230(c) of the Communications
Decency Act, which affords immunity to platforms from liability for content posted to its websites by third parties, according to the opinion. But Coogler pointed out that he already rejected this argument when he denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in 2022.

Coogler pointed out that child sexual abuse material doesn’t constitute the same sort of “information” that Section 230(c) pertains to, according to the opinion. The legislation is also related to a publisher or speaker of the information provided by a third party.

The plaintiff’s “claims allege that defendants are not only distributors of CSAM but also receivers and possessors of it, which are in themselves criminal acts,” Coogler said.

Like the Third Circuit’s 2024 ruling in Anderson v. TikTok Inc., the domains also employ an algorithm, recommend search terms, and personalized playlists as a content provider, which isn’t shielded by Section 230(c), Coogler said.

The defendants’ rebuttal that they had no knowledge that the plaintiff was underage in the video also doesn’t hold up, Coogler wrote. He pointed to many examples in the record of the defendants waiting until videos are reported multiple times to remove the material. Coogler said this constitutes circumstantial evidence of the defendants’ knowledge or deliberate ignorance to the issue.

Doe’s bid for summary judgment on the possession and distribution claim was also denied, according to the opinion. Coogler ruled that it remains disputed whether the defendants knew about her underage status.

Levin Papantonio Proctor Buchanan O’Brien Barr & Mougey PA, Prince Glover & Hayes, Laffey Bucci D’Andrea Reich & Ryan LLP, Clark Hill PLC, The Zarzaur Law Firm, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation represent the proposed class and Doe. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC and Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC represent the defendants.

The case is Doe #1 v. MG Freesites LTD, N.D. Ala., No. 7:21-cv-00220, order and opinion 12/19/24.