United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-20543 

____________ 

John Doe, through Next Friend Jane Roe, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Snap, Incorporated, doing business as Snapchat, L.L.C., doing 

business as Snap, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:22-CV-590 

______________________________ 

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

John Doe, through his legal guardian, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his claims against Snap Inc. (“Snap”). He argues that in light of 

the allegations made against Snap, it cannot claim immunity under § 230 of 

the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2). 

However, for the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 26, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20543 Document: 00516799885 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 22-20543 

2 

For nearly a year and a half, John Doe (“Doe”), a minor child, was 

sexually assaulted by his high school science teacher, Bonnie Guess-Mazock 

(“Mazock”). Mazock utilized the social media platform Snapchat, which is 

owned by Snap, to groom Doe by sending him sexually explicit content. 

Eventually, Mazock began to meet with Doe outside of the classroom to 

encourage and engage in sexual conduct. The abuse was not uncovered until 

Doe overdosed on prescription drugs that were either provided or financed 

by Mazock. 

Doe eventually sued Mazock, the school district, and Snap. Against 

Snap, Doe brought claims under Texas law for negligent undertaking, 

negligent design, and gross negligence. In response, Snap moved to dismiss 

the suit under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing 

that inter alia, Doe’s claims were precluded by the CDA. 

Relying on this court’s precedent, the district court granted Snap’s 

motion. It explained that this court and others have held that § 230 of the 

CDA provides “immunity . . . to Web-based service providers for all claims 

stemming from their publication of information created by third parties.” 

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). As Doe’s claims 

against Snap were based on Mazock’s messages, the district court found 

Snap immune from liability. 

On appeal, Doe asks us to revisit this issue. He cites several authorities 

in support of his contention that the broad immunity provided by the CDA 

goes against its plain text and public policy. However, as Doe himself 

acknowledges, this argument is contrary to the law of our circuit: “Parties 

complaining that they were harmed by a Web site’s publication of usergenerated content . . . may sue the third-party user who generated the 

content, but not the interactive computer service that enabled them to 

publish the content online.” MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d at 419; see also Diez v. 

Case: 22-20543 Document: 00516799885 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2023
No. 22-20543 

3 

Google, Inc., 831 F. App’x 723, 724 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (per 

curiam) (“By its plain text, § 230 creates federal immunity to any cause of 

action that would make internet service providers liable for information 

originating with a third-party user of the service.”). Because we are bound by 

the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by 

an en banc panel of our court or by the Supreme Court, see Jacobs v. Nat’l 

Drug Intel. Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008), we AFFIRM the 

judgment of the district court.

Case: 22-20543 Document: 00516799885 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/26/2023