The ongoing litigation in G.G. v. Salesforce represents a significant test of legal boundaries for technology companies, examining whether providing business infrastructure to platforms involved in child sex trafficking constitutes participation in a trafficking venture under federal law. The case, which includes attorney Tommy Fibich on the plaintiff's legal team, does not accuse Salesforce of creating ads or directly trafficking children but instead focuses on whether the company can be held accountable for supplying customized software that helped Backpage, a classifieds website, operate and expand its trafficking operations.
The lawsuit was brought by a survivor of child sex trafficking under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which allows survivors to sue anyone who knowingly benefits from participation in a sex trafficking venture. The plaintiff alleges that Salesforce knowingly benefited from providing 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. According to the lawsuit, Backpage's adult services section was a primary marketplace for sex trafficking where traffickers advertised victims, including minors, using coded language and pricing structures designed to avoid detection.
An Illinois federal court initially dismissed the case, but a split Seventh Circuit panel reversed that decision on August 3, 2023, holding that the allegations were sufficient to proceed under the TVPA. The court differentiated between publishing speech and providing services that allegedly helped a trafficking operation succeed, ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not automatically bar claims based on "non-expressive conduct." Salesforce had argued that the claims attempted to impose liability based on content posted by others, but the Seventh Circuit rejected that framing at the current stage of litigation.
The legal framework under the TVPA requires survivors to show that a 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 the venture involved trafficking. 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. The dissenting judges in the Seventh Circuit expressed concern that the ruling could broaden liability for companies doing business with bad actors, while the majority held that free speech protections don't extend to shielding companies from accountability if their conduct supports criminal exploitation.
This case highlights the tension between long-standing free speech protections for technology companies and federal laws designed to combat sex trafficking, with courts beginning to scrutinize technology that goes beyond hosting speech and into enabling exploitation. The implications extend beyond this specific litigation, potentially establishing new precedents for when business relationships cross into legal complicity. For business leaders and technology executives, the ruling suggests increased scrutiny of client relationships and due diligence requirements, particularly when providing services to platforms with known illegal activities. The outcome could reshape how technology companies evaluate partnerships and implement compliance measures, creating new legal exposure for companies that provide infrastructure to platforms engaged in illegal activities.
Civil lawsuits like G.G. v. Salesforce can provide compensation for physical and emotional harm while playing a broader role by exposing systems that allow trafficking to persist. Each claim depends on specific facts, with cases turning on what the defendant knew, when they knew it, and how their conduct supported the venture. The Seventh Circuit's decision to allow the case to proceed indicates that courts may be willing to expand liability under the TVPA to include technology providers whose services enable trafficking operations, creating potential new avenues for accountability in the fight against child exploitation.
