The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed a civil lawsuit against Salesforce to proceed, creating a significant legal test case that examines the boundaries of corporate accountability in the digital age. The case, G.G. v. Salesforce, centers on whether technology companies can be held liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) for providing business infrastructure to platforms involved in child sex trafficking, even when they don't directly host or create the illegal content.
The lawsuit was brought by a survivor of child sex trafficking through her mother and alleges that Salesforce knowingly benefited from providing customized software to Backpage, a classifieds website whose adult services section became a leading platform for trafficking and prostitution. According to court documents, Salesforce supplied Backpage with customer relationship management tools that helped organize advertisers and track revenue, services that continued after Backpage's involvement in sex trafficking became publicly known. Law enforcement agencies had repeatedly identified Backpage as a trafficking hub where traffickers used coded language and pricing structures to advertise victims, including minors.
The legal framework at the center of this case is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which allows survivors to sue anyone who knowingly benefits from participation in a sex trafficking venture. The law doesn't require proof that a defendant directly trafficked victims or intended harm. Instead, a civil claim under the TVPA generally argues that the defendant knowingly received something of value as a result of participating in a venture that engaged in sex trafficking, while knowing or having reason to know about the trafficking activity. Congress drafted the law to reach facilitators and profiteers, not just traffickers, with "something of value" including service and licensing revenue, and "participation" including conduct that helps the venture operate or expand.
Salesforce had argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally prevents online platforms from being treated as publishers of third-party content, should protect them from liability. However, the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument at the current stage, differentiating between publishing speech and providing services that allegedly helped a trafficking operation succeed. The court held that Section 230 does not automatically bar claims based on "non-expressive conduct." The ruling, which was not unanimous, has created concern among some legal observers about potentially broadening liability for companies doing business with bad actors, while others see it as necessary to hold companies accountable when their conduct supports criminal exploitation.
The implications of this case extend beyond the specific parties involved. The decision signals that courts may be willing to scrutinize technology that goes beyond hosting speech and into enabling exploitation, potentially affecting how technology companies conduct due diligence on their business partners. For survivors of sex trafficking, the ruling represents an important legal pathway, as civil lawsuits can provide compensation for physical and emotional harm while exposing systems that allow trafficking to persist. The case demonstrates that courts may allow survivors to proceed if they can plausibly show a defendant knowingly participated and benefited from a trafficking venture, even without direct interaction between the company and the survivor.
As the case moves forward, it will continue to test the balance between free speech protections for technology companies and federal laws designed to combat sex trafficking. The outcome could establish important precedents for when business relationships cross into complicity with criminal enterprises, particularly in the technology sector where services often enable platform operations at scale. More information about the legal principles involved can be found at https://fibichlaw.com/.
