Rosenblum v. Passes, Inc.
Issue
Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Passes, Inc. from liability for child sexual abuse material (CSAM) where plaintiff alleges the platform's agents actively solicited a minor to join the platform and then marketed and distributed the resulting CSAM.
What Happened
Plaintiff, a former minor, alleges that agents of Passes, Inc. actively recruited her to join the platform while underage and subsequently marketed and distributed child sexual abuse material she posted. In opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff argues that Section 230 immunity does not apply because the platform defendants acted as content developers through their agents' active solicitation and marketing conduct, rather than as neutral publishers of third-party content. The opposition contends the complaint sufficiently alleges scienter and that the agents (Celestin and Ginoza) acted with actual or apparent authority on behalf of Passes, making the platform liable for their conduct. The parties dispute whether venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida and whether the complaint constitutes an improper shotgun pleading.
Why It Matters
This case presents a potentially significant challenge to Section 230's scope in CSAM cases by alleging that platform agents' active recruitment and marketing of a minor creator transforms the platform from a passive host into a content developer or co-creator. If the material contribution theory survives the motion to dismiss, it could narrow Section 230 immunity for platforms whose employees or agents allegedly facilitate the creation or distribution of illegal content, particularly involving minors—extending the "content developer" exception beyond algorithmic design to direct human agency and solicitation.