The plaintiffs, suing under the pseudonyms John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2, alleged they were solicited at 13 for sex trafficking and manipulated into providing pornographic videos that were later viewed on Twitter more than 167,000 times. In August, a federal court in California allowed their claim that Twitter benefited from sex trafficking but dismissed all other claims.
Twitter appealed ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.
