1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul Nathanson (pro hac vice)

Erik Herron (pro hac vice)

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 

901 15th St. NW

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 962-7055

paul.nathanson@davispolk.com

Attorneys for Equality Now

David Boies (pro hac vice)

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

333 Main Street

Armonk, NY 10504

(914) 749-8200

dboies@bsfllp.com

Attorney for Legal Momentum, 

Sanctuary for Families, United 

Abolitionists, Inc., and National 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

- v -

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

[PROPOSED] BRIEF OF AMICI 

CURIAE EQUALITY NOW, 

LEGAL MOMENTUM, 

SANCTUARY FOR FAMILIES, 

UNITED ABOLITIONISTS, INC., 

AND NATIONAL COALITION 

AGAINST DOMESTIC 

VIOLENCE

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

Equality Now is an international human rights organization that advocates for the 

protection and promotion of the rights of women and girls worldwide. Founded in 1992, 

Equality Now has a long history in working on issues of sex trafficking and sexual 

exploitation and has been involved in advocating for action against websites for over 10 

years. Equality Now has a strong interest in the outcome of the case because of the 

public interest nature of the suit, and the important effects that this case may have on the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

ability to ensure that websites that facilitate and profit from sex trafficking are no longer 

free from liability.

Legal Momentum, the Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, is a national 

nonprofit gender justice advocacy organization. For nearly 50 years, Legal Momentum 

has been advancing equal rights for girls and women through legislative efforts, impact 

litigation, and direct representation of clients. Its areas of focus have included 

employment law, campus safety, sports, and all forms of gender-based violence. Legal 

Momentum considers sex trafficking to be one of the most extreme forms of violence 

against women and is involved in efforts to end gender-based violence perpetrated online. 

As part of these efforts, Legal Momentum has partnered with nonprofit organizations and 

cities throughout the country to end online commercial sexual exploitation of women and 

girls, including sex trafficking on Backpage.com (“Backpage”). Additionally, for four 

decades, through its award-winning National Judicial Education Project, Legal 

Momentum has been educating judges and court officials on issues related to genderbased violence against girls and women, including cyber-related violence.

Sanctuary for Families (“Sanctuary”) is New York’s largest dedicated service 

provider and advocate for victims of domestic violence, human trafficking, and related 

forms of gender violence. Every year, Sanctuary provides legal, clinical, shelter and 

economic empowerment services to over 15,000 victims and their children. Sanctuary 

provides training on domestic violence and sex trafficking to community advocates, pro 

bono attorneys, law students, service providers and the members of the judiciary. 

Sanctuary seeks to advance and protect the rights and interests of sex trafficking victims, 

and to prevent future victimization. Sanctuary thus has a substantial interest in preventing 

the illegal marketing and sale of sex trafficking victims on Backpage.com. Because 

Sanctuary has extensive experience assisting sex trafficking victims and addressing ways 

to eliminate sex trafficking, Sanctuary is uniquely positioned to inform the Court 

regarding issues relevant to this case. In addition, owing to the public interest nature of 

the case as well as the important effects that this case may have on the momentum gained 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

to ensure that websites that facilitate and profit from sex trafficking are no longer free 

from liability, Sanctuary for Families has a strong interest in the outcome of the case.

United Abolitionist, Inc., d.b.a. Florida Abolitionist, Inc. (“Florida Abolitionist”),

is a non-profit, antitrafficking organization committed to the prevention of sex trafficking 

and to crisis intervention for sex trafficking victims. 

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (“NCADV”) is the nation’s 

oldest national grassroots domestic violence organization. NCADV’s mission is to lead, 

mobilize, and raise our voices to support efforts that demand a change of conditions that 

lead to domestic violence such as patriarchy, privilege, racism, sexism, and classism—the 

same conditions that perpetuate commission of crimes such as sex trafficking. Domestic 

violence and sex trafficking can overlap, with survivors of domestic violence also being 

victims of sex trafficking. NCADV is dedicated to supporting survivors and holding 

offenders accountable.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

While the rapid growth of the Internet has enabled people to become increasingly 

connected, it has also created opportunities for criminals to abuse those connections to 

facilitate illegal activities. The Internet has had a particularly profound effect on the 

market for sex trafficking, including the sale of children and other victims without their 

consent. Amici and many other organizations have witnessed firsthand the horrific stories 

told by these victims.

Many of the stories come from victims of crimes perpetuated by Backpage, which 

for years, actively facilitated the sex trafficking of children and other victims. 1 Not only 

 

1 Although Defendants were not indicted for sex trafficking directly, the Superseding 

Indictment details stories of sex trafficking, including of a child (Victim 5) who first 

appeared in a Backpage ad when she was 14 and was forced to “perform sexual acts at 

gunpoint, choked [] to the point of having seizures, and gang-raped.” (Superseding 

Indictment ¶ 164.) Moreover, the crimes that Defendants were indicted for—conspiracy 

under 18 U.S.C. § 371, facilitating prostitution under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3)(A), 

conspiracy to commit money laundering and related crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 1956—

made sex trafficking possible by creating an accessible marketplace for trafficked women 

and children and helping to ensure that traffickers were able to pay for advertisements 

without detection by third parties. They also ensured that Defendants could profit from 

their facilitation of sex trafficking.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

did Backpage profit from this conduct, it purposely thwarted law enforcement efforts to 

stop it. A two-year investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations revealed 

that Backpage welcomed illegal content on its website and actively worked to ensure that 

traffickers would not face criminal liability for their actions. Despite the immense harms 

they suffered for nearly a decade, victims were unable to access justice, and states were 

unable to prosecute these crimes, due to immunities that are unavailing in this case.

Although Defendants argue that their prosecution improperly infringes on their 

First Amendment rights, this case is not about free speech. It is about real crimes that 

happened to real people. Defendants ignore the role that Backpage has played in sex 

trafficking and the profound effect it has on its victims. Amici submit this brief to bring 

these stories, and Backpage’s involvement in them, to the Court’s attention. Amici

respectfully request that the Defendants’ motion be denied, and that this case move 

forward so that Backpage’s victims can finally access justice.

ARGUMENT

I. VICTIMS HAVE SUFFERED SUBSTANTIAL INJURIES FROM BEING 

TRAFFICKED ON BACKPAGE.

The horrors that Backpage helped to inflict on young women and children is now 

well documented in both court filings and the media. Also well documented is the fact

that Backpage knew its website was helping, and at times actively aiding, sex traffickers 

sell children and other victims, but did nothing to prevent that conduct and continued

profiting from those sales. Given the egregiousness of the conduct that the Government 

has alleged here, it is paramount that courts acknowledge the deep harm suffered by 

victims of that conduct. We write to provide the Court with the stories of multiple 

victims of crimes perpetuated by Backpage, who represent just a small fraction of the 

people who have been sold for sex on the marketplace that Backpage created for that very 

purpose. The notion that Backpage’s knowing facilitation of these crimes is somehow 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

protected by the First Amendment is offensive both to the thousands of victims sold on 

Backpage and any reasonable notion of justice.

One civil case that Legal Momentum has brought against Backpage and its 

enablers involves two victims, “Alice” and “Sarah.”

2

 Alice was a 15-year-old honors 

student when her traffickers created an online advertisement on Backpage that offered her 

for sex.3 Her traffickers kept her confined, branded her, and took numerous photographs 

of her to continue creating ads on Backpage that would attract new “customers.”4 Over 

the course of two weeks, Alice was raped by numerous individuals who responded to the 

Backpage advertisement posted by her traffickers.5 Fortunately, Alice was able to escape 

by calling her mother to tell her where she was being held by her traffickers.6 

Immediately upon her return home, Alice and her family reported her traffickers to law 

enforcement and emailed Backpage, requesting that the advertisement be removed.7 

Backpage ignored their pleas, and allowed the advertisement to remain on its website. 8 

Sarah was a high-functioning college student when she was trafficked through 

Backpage.9 By the time Sarah was abducted by her traffickers, they had already 

repeatedly used Backpage to traffic other women, and had become experienced using the 

website.10 Sarah’s traffickers confined her to a hotel room and created an advertisement 

 

2 Evidence on file with amici curiae. We have used aliases to protect the identities of the 

victims described herein.

3 Florida Abolitionist, Inc., et al., v. Backpage.com LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-218, Dkt. 86 at 

7 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2018).

4

Id.

5

Id.

6

Id. at 49.

7

Id. 

8

Id.

9

Id. at 48.

10 Id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 5 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

offering her for sexual services on Backpage without her consent.11 In only 12 hours, 

Sarah was raped by five different individuals who responded to the Backpage 

advertisement placed by her traffickers.12 She still suffers immense trauma from those 

attacks today.13

These two stories are emblematic of the stories of thousands of other victims who 

were trafficked on Backpage. While Defendants tout their success in civil litigation

(Defs.’ Br. at 4-8), the facts of these cases are shocking and the victims’ inability to seek 

justice for the crimes against them is an outrage. For example, in another civil case 

against Backpage, the 15-year-old female plaintiffs who were trafficked via Backpage 

had been raped 900 to 1,000 times each.14 Again, the parents of one of the fifteen-yearold girls reported to Backpage that she was being trafficked on the site throughout New 

England. They provided Backpage with the information to locate the advertisements and 

demanded that the illegal advertisements be taken down. Just as with Alice, Backpage 

failed to respond to the report.15 In Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, law enforcement in 

Seattle asked Backpage to remove an advertisement of a confirmed minor and any other 

advertisements by that poster.16 While Backpage actually removed the advertisement, 

only a few days later, the same child appeared in six more advertisements, with the same 

phone number and same pictures.17 In R.O. v. Backpage.com, LLC, “Emily” was 

 

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 2016).

15 Id. at 17 n.3. 

16 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1267 (W.D. Wash. 2012).

17 Id. at 1267–68.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 6 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

trafficked at 14-years-old. Emily’s traffickers paid Backpage a fee to “moderate” each ad 

of Emily to obscure that the ads were for sex.18 

A daily stream of news articles further details the crimes facilitated by Backpage. 

In Detroit, a man kept three women that he trafficked on Backpage locked in a cage in his 

basement, and confined a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old girl upstairs.

19

 The man would 

assault the women if they refused to be sold on Backpage—breaking a victim’s arm more 

than once—and would inject them with drugs so that they would cooperate. Another 

man advertised a 15-year-old on Backpage and forced her to have sex with adult men an 

average of 15 times a day, while also beating her regularly.

20

 Ultimately she was beaten 

so severely that she ended up in the hospital, where she was able to get help from the 

police. In New Orleans, a man advertised a 13-year-old girl on Backpage.21 He forced 

her to pose naked for ads on Backpage, regularly raped her, and forced her to take drugs. 

One trafficker in Brooklyn sold a 13-year-old girl on Backpage.22 When she attempted to 

flee, he kicked her down a stairwell. Despite her wounds from this incident and repeated 

rapes, the trafficker continued to sell her on Backpage. 

 

18 No. 17-2-04897-1, (Super. Ct. Wash. filed Jan. 25, 2017).

19 Phyllis Asinyanbi, Sixty-Seven-Year-Old Man Accused of Sex Trafficking Women and 

Pimping Them out on Backpage.com, INQUISITR (Nov. 19, 2016), 

https://www.inquisitr.com/3729264/sixty-seven-year-old-man-accused-of-sextrafficking-women-and-pimping-them-out-on-backpage-com/. 

20 David J. Neal, He Pimped out a 15-Year-Old on Backpage.com. Prison Next for Sex 

Trafficking, Porn, MIAMI HERALD (May 13, 2019), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/

state/florida/article229968649.html. 

21 Emily Lane, Accused Pimp Forced Girl Since Age 13 to Walk Bourbon Street, 

Soliciting 

Sex: Warrant, NOLA MEDIA GROUP (July 26, 2016), https://www.nola.com/traffic/2016/0

7/pimp_bourbon_street_rape_nine.html.

22 Nicholas Kristof, How Pimps Use the Web to Sell Girls, N.Y TIMES, (Jan. 25, 2012), 

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/opinion/how-pimps-use-the-web-to-sellgirls.html?_r=2&ref=opinion%20

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 7 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

The full scope of the damage Backpage inflicted on victims of trafficking, like 

Alice, like Sarah, and so many others, is enormous. It will likely never be fully 

quantified, but the criminal charges that the Government has brought against Defendants 

is a good place to start the process of obtaining justice for these victims.

II. FOR NEARLY A DECADE, PLAINTIFFS WHO SUFFERED GRIEVOUS 

HARMS DUE TO BACKPAGE’S CONDUCT WERE UNABLE TO 

ACCESS JUSTICE DUE TO IMMUNITIES THAT ARE UNAVAILING IN 

THIS CASE.

Despite these horrific stories and the abhorrent conduct of Backpage and its 

personnel, private plaintiffs could not hold Backpage responsible for its pernicious

business model because of the immunity granted by Section 230(c)(1)23 of the 

Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), which shielded websites “from being ‘treated as 

the publisher or speaker’ of material posted by users of the site . . . meaning that ‘lawsuits 

seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional 

editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter 

content—are barred[.]’”24

Failed lawsuits against Backpage vividly illustrate the perverse results of Section 

230 as it existed before the 2018 enactment of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act 

(“FOSTA”).25 In Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, the court denied relief to the 

15-year-old plaintiffs who had been raped up to 1,000 times, finding that Congress 

“chose to grant broad protections to internet publishers” and “[w]hatever Backpage’s

motivations, those motivations do not alter the fact that the complaint premises liability 

on the decisions that Backpage is making as a publisher with respect to third-party 

content.”26

 

23 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (2012).

24 Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12, 18 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing Zeran v. 

Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)).

25 Pub. L. No. 115-164, 132 Stat. 1253 (2018).

26

 817 F.3d at 21, 29.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 8 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

Similarly, a 2010 lawsuit alleged that traffickers manipulated an emotionally 

distraught 15-year-old girl into joining them and then sold her for sex on Backpage across 

the United States. Section 230 immunized Backpage from liability for this “horrific 

victimization” as well.27

State criminal prosecutions were likewise stymied by the CDA, enabling the 

online advertisement of child trafficking to “go[] unchecked, . . . [and] magnifying the 

problem,” as attested by the attorneys general of nearly all states in 2013.28 For instance, 

the State of California charged Backpage with sex trafficking offenses in 2016, linking 

specific payments to the company to the rape of five children,29 but a state court 

dismissed the charges, citing the CDA.30

Additionally, Backpage waged a campaign of pre-enforcement legal challenges to 

state statutes enacted in Washington, Tennessee, and New Jersey that sought to 

criminalize the advertisement of minors for sex, invoking the CDA and claiming 

Backpage was only a conduit for third-party content. Federal courts found Section 230 

preempted all three of these statutes.31

 

27 M.A. ex rel. P.K. v. Vill. Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D. Mo. 

2011).

28 See Letter from the National Ass’n of Attorneys Gen. to Senator John 

Rockefeller IV, et al. (July 23, 2013), https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewconten

t.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1465&context=historical.

29 Complaint at 2016 WL 6091120, People v. Ferrer, No. 16FE019224, 2016 WL 

7237305 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2016).

30 2016 WL 7237305 at *3–5. Federal criminal prosecutions fell outside Section 230’s 

immunity provisions, but the Department of Justice reported “serious challenges” 

meeting the “high evidentiary standard needed to bring federal criminal charges for 

advertising sex trafficking.” Letter from Steven E. Boyd, Asst. Att’y Gen., to Hon. 

Robert W. Goodlatte, Chairman, Comm. on Judiciary (Feb. 27, 2018), 

https://www.eff.org/files/2018/03/19/doj-sesta.pdf. 

31 See STAFF OF PERM. SUBCOMM. ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE S. COMM. ON HOMELAND 

SEC. & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 115TH CONG., STAFF REP. ON BACKPAGE.COM’S 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 9 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

This state of affairs—in which state and local authorities (which in some instances 

may be better-positioned to address sex trafficking than federal counterparts) were 

effectively powerless vis-à-vis companies such as Backpage that facilitated and enabled 

sex trafficking on a grand scale—was widely recognized as untenable.32 Accordingly, 

Congress amended the CDA by enacting FOSTA, which allows civil litigants to file 

claims against websites that, like Backpage, knowingly facilitated sex trafficking. While 

this was a necessary step to ensure that victims could seek justice against those websites 

that profited from their harm, the Government has always held the power to file criminal 

charges against sites like Backpage that facilitate prostitution and trafficking of minors

and obscure the sources of their money to hide the illicit proceeds of their crimes. The 

Government was well within its rights to exercise that power here.

As discussed further in the Government’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss the Indictment, Backpage and its executives have claimed their conduct is 

protected by the First Amendment, in part by citing to cases in which Backpage was in 

fact found to be immune from civil and/or state-law claims under CDA Section 230. As 

the Court is aware, Section 230 does not immunize online service providers from federal 

criminal prosecution. Further, as the Government notes in its response, many of the cases 

cited by Defendants were decided prior to the “sea-change in the availability of evidence” 

concerning Backpage’s conduct owed to subsequently completed congressional and 

grand-jury investigations.33

 

KNOWING FACILITATION OF ONLINE SEX TRAFFICKING 9–10 & nn.48–50 (2017)

[hereinafter “Backpage Report”].

32 See generally id.; The Latest Developments in Combating Online Sex Trafficking: 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commc’ns & Tech. of the H. Comm. on Energy & 

Commerce, 115th Cong. (2017) [hereinafter “Online Sex Trafficking Hearing”]; Human 

Trafficking Investigation Before the Perm. Subcomm. on Investigations of the S. Comm. 

on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015) [hereinafter “Human 

Trafficking Hearing”].

33 United States’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Indictment at 21–26, 

United States v. Lacey, No. 18-cr-00422-SMB (D. Ariz. June 12, 2019).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 10 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

III. BACKPAGE ACTIVELY FACILITATED TRAFFICKING THOUSANDS 

OF VICTIMS. 

Until Backpage was seized by the Government and shut down in April 2018, it 

monopolized the sex trafficking industry, becoming the highly profitable go-to website 

for sex trafficking.34 Service providers across the country, when asked how many of the 

victims they serve were trafficked on Backpage, reported percentages ranging from 70 to 

100%. When the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”)

received a report of a missing child, it first searched Backpage, as over 73% of cases that 

the public reported to NCMEC relating to child sex trafficking are of children listed on 

the site.35 NCMEC received approximately 10,000 reports of suspected child sex 

trafficking each year—meaning that there were more than 7,300 reported incidents of 

child sex trafficking involving Backpage.36 The number of unreported incidents is 

presumably much higher.

Backpage dominated the sex trafficking market by making it easy for traffickers to 

use the website and evade law enforcement. Backpage’s guilty plea in the District of 

Arizona shows both that Backpage was keenly aware of the sex trafficking rampant on its 

website and that Backpage did not monitor advertisements in good faith. A report by the 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (“PSI Staff Report”) suggests that Backpage 

 

34 STAFF OF PERM. SUBCOMM. ON INVESTIGATIONS OF THE S. COMM. ON HOMELAND SEC.

& GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 114TH CONG., STAFF REP. ON RECOMMENDATION TO 

ENFORCE A SUBPOENA ISSUED TO THE CEO OF BACKPAGE.COM, LLC 6 (2016) 

[hereinafter “PSI Staff Report”] (quoting Testimony of Yiota G. Souras, Senior Vice 

President & General Counsel, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, before 

Perm. Subcomm. on Investigations, at 3 (Nov. 19, 2015)).

35 Backpage Report at 6.

36 NAT’L CTR. FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN, SESTA-FOSTA: MOVING 

FORWARD WITH A NEW LAW TO COMBAT ONLINE CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING 2 (2018), 

http://endsextrafficking.az.gov/sites/default/files/meeting-documents/Human%20Traffick

ing/materials/final_htc_presentation_053018.pdf. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 11 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

altered advertisements for the purpose of concealing evidence of criminality.37 More so, 

in its plea agreement submitted in the District of Arizona, Backpage admitted not only 

that it knew that “the great majority of these advertisements are, in fact, advertisements 

for prostitution services” but that Backpage “knowingly facilitate[ed]” prostitution.38 

Backpage admitted to using “‘moderation’ processes through which Backpage would 

remove terms and pictures that were particularly indicative of prostitution and then 

publish a revised version of the ad . . . [as part of a] company-wide culture and policy of 

concealing and refusing to officially acknowledge the true nature of the services being 

offered in Backpage’s ‘escort’ and ‘adult’ ads.”39

These processes and policies have resulted in an incredibly lucrative business 

model for Backpage. While Backpage has repeatedly refused to disclose its profitability, 

the PSI Staff Report found that Backpage was valued at over $600 million in 2015 and 

was estimated to be roughly nine times more profitable than the average Internet services 

company.40 Backpage’s staggering profitability appears to be based almost entirely on its 

advertisements for sex. While Backpage was a private company and did not disclose its 

financial information, the then-California Attorney General reported that from January 

2013 to March 2015, 99% of Backpage’s income worldwide was derived from its “adult” 

 

37 See PSI Staff Report at 21 (“Backpage’s moderation process operated to remove 

explicit references to the likely illegality of the underlying transaction—not to prevent 

illegal conduct from taking place on its site.”). 

38 United States v. Backpage.com, LLC, Case No. 18-cr-465, Dkt. 8-1 at 11 (D. Ariz. Apr. 

5, 2018). 

39 Id.

40 PSI Staff Report at 26.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 12 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

section.41 During that same time, Backpage received $51 million in revenue from 

California alone.42 

Backpage consistently chose to protect its revenue stream rather than to respond to 

pleas to take even the most basic steps to prevent trafficking. On September 16, 2011, 

the National Association of Attorneys General (“NAAG”) sent a letter to Backpage, 

eventually signed by all 51 state Attorneys General, expressing grave concern over its 

practices.43 NAAG noted that when Missouri investigators flagged 25 postings 

advertising children in July 2011, four days later, Backpage had removed only five of 

those postings.44 NAAG requested that Backpage substantiate its claims that it 

systematically moderates and removes illegal content. Backpage refused. In refusing, 

Backpage continued to facilitate trafficking victims.

IV. CONGRESS SPENT YEARS INVESTIGATING BACKPAGE’S 

FACILITATION OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND CLEARLY CONCLUDED 

THAT BACKPAGE’S CONDUCT WAS CULPABLE.

Drawing on a variety of sources, including social-science research and reports 

from law enforcement, Congress investigated sex trafficking on the Internet for years and 

found that this “[growing] debasement of our common humanity”45 was brazenly enabled 

 

41 Press Release, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Criminal Charges 

Against Senior Corporate Officers of Backpage.com for Profiting from Prostitution and 

Arrest of Carl Ferrer, CEO (Oct. 6, 2016), https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorne

y-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-criminal-charges-against-senior.

42 Id.

43 Letter from the National Ass’n of Attorneys Gen. to Samuel Fifer, Counsel for 

Backpage.com, LLC (Sept. 16, 2011), https://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/signons/Bac

kpage.com%20FINAL%209-16-11.pdf.

44 Id.

45 In Our Own Backyard: Child Prostitution and Sex Trafficking in the United States: 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Human Rights & the Law of the S. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, 111th Cong. 1 (2010) (statement of Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Chairman, S. 

Subcomm. on Human Rights and the Law, quoting President-elect Barack Obama). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 13 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

by web platforms that were, until recently, largely exempt from liability for these crimes 

as a consequence of Section 230 of the CDA.46

Traffickers coerce their victims in a variety of ways, including through threats of 

physical violence, isolation, psychological manipulation, and induced drug dependency.47 

Children are especially vulnerable to manipulation by traffickers because they are 

generally economically dependent on adults and not fully developed emotionally and 

intellectually.48

Researchers have found it impossible to reliably measure the prevalence of child 

sex trafficking in the United States.49 However, it is clear that the Internet has made this 

unconscionable trade easier and more prevalent by allowing traffickers to control their 

operations, including by grooming, recruiting, and advertising their victims 

anonymously, at low cost, and to a wider audience with a lower risk of encountering law 

enforcement.50

 

46 See generally PSI Staff Report.

47 See generally Backpage Report; Human Trafficking Hearing; see also Linda A. Smith 

et al., The National Report on Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: America’s Prostituted 

Children, SHARED HOPE 37–40 (May 2009).

48 See Megan Annitto, Consent, Coercion, and Compassion: Crafting a Commonsense 

Approach to Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Minors, 30 YALE L. & POL’Y REV. 1, 7, 

13–14 (2011).

49 See generally Backpage Report; Online Sex Trafficking Hearing; see also Ellen Wright 

Clayton et al., Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of 

Minors in the United States, NAT’L ACAD. OF SCIENCES, 2013, pp. 42–57, 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/243838.pdf.

50 Online Sex Trafficking Hearing at 2, 15, 22; see also DOJ, THE NAT’L STRATEGY FOR 

CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENTION AND INTERDICTION 77 (2016), https://www.justice.g

ov/psc/file/842411/download (“As escort and social networking websites have grown in 

number, they have gained popularity with pimps and have become the most popular 

platform to advertise sex trafficking victims. These websites provide anonymity and 24-

hour accessibility to a large pool of clients, thus increasing revenue to traffickers.”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 14 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

NCMEC reported an 846% increase in reports of suspected child sex trafficking 

from 2010 to 2015, which the organization found to be “directly correlated to the 

increased use of the Internet to sell children for sex.”51 A report covering all criminal and 

civil human trafficking cases handled by federal courts in 2017 recorded 661 active sex 

trafficking cases—65.8% involving child victims, 84.3% involving the use of the Internet

to solicit customers, and 72.3% involving classified advertisements posted on 

Backpage.52

As found in the course of these congressional investigations, sites like Backpage

have presented themselves as broad platforms for classified advertising, but they have 

allowed users to post advertisements for sexual services, operating with almost complete 

impunity, even when their actions reflected a clear intent to facilitate child sex 

trafficking. For instance, Backpage was not simply turning a blind eye to child sex 

trafficking; it actively promoted it by (1) systematically sanitizing advertisements to 

conceal evidence of children being sold for sex;

53 (2) removing phone numbers, email 

addresses, IP addresses, and metadata from sex ads to frustrate the pursuit of sex 

traffickers by law enforcement;

54 (3) waiving verification requirements for sex 

advertisements, even though they were required for other advertisements;

55

(4) deliberately removing advertisements posted by anti-trafficking groups and law 

 

51 Backpage Report at 16.

52 THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING INSTITUTE, 2017 FEDERAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING REPORT 3, 

14 (2017), https://www.traffickingmatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2017-

Federal-Human-Trafficking-Report_hi-res.pdf. 

53 Backpage Report at 59–61.

54 Human Trafficking Hearing at 17–22.

55 Id. at 8.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 15 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

enforcement agencies seeking to aid sex trafficking victims;

56 and (5) allowing traffickers 

to pay for ads with prepaid credit cards and cryptocurrencies to evade law enforcement.57 

As an example of Backpage’s flagrant connivance, it used an ad filter that 

automatically deleted terms from advertisements suggesting that child sex trafficking was 

afoot, such as “Lolita,” “rape,” “little girl,” or “Amber Alert.”58 In another instance, a 

Backpage content moderator reported that he was told by Backpage’s COO that 

“[l]eaving notes on our site that imply we are aware of prostitution, or in any position to 

define it, is enough to lose your job.”59

Indeed, investigations by Congress, including that of the Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations of the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, helped to partly pave the way for Backpage and its executives to be held legally 

accountable, unearthing hundreds of thousands of internal emails and documents that 

demonstrate Backpage’s knowing facilitation of sex trafficking.60

CONCLUSION

Backpage has facilitated illegal sex trafficking on a horrific scale, including the 

rape of innumerable underage girls. In light of the academic research, legal filings, and 

congressional investigation material cited above, Amici respectfully submit that the 

 

56 Second Am. Compl. ¶ 40, Doe ex rel. Roe v. Backpage.com, LLC, 104 F. Supp. 3d 149 

(D. Mass. 2014) (No. 14-13870), aff’d sub nom. Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 

817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016).

57 Id. ¶ 47; Compl. ¶¶ 77–78; Sojourner Ctr. v. Backpage.com, LLC, 2:17-cv-00399 (D. 

Ariz. Feb. 7, 2017).

58 Backpage Report at 2–3.

59 Id. at 4.

60 United States’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Indictment at 21–24, 

United States v. Lacey, No. 18-cr-00422-SMB (D. Ariz. June 12, 2019); see also

Backpage Report at 10–16 (detailing subcommittee investigation and subpoena-related 

litigation).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 16 of 17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 17 -

indictment against Defendants should not be dismissed, and that this case should move 

forward.

Dated this 19th day of June, 2019 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Nathanson

Paul J. Nathanson (pro hac vice)

Erik Herron (pro hac vice)

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

901 15th St. NW

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 962-7055

paul.nathanson@davispolk.com

Attorney for Equality Now

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ David Boies

David Boies (pro hac vice)

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

333 Main Street

Armonk, NY 10504

(914) 749-7200

dboies@bsfllp.com

Attorney for Legal Momentum, 

Sanctuary for Families, United 

Abolitionists, Inc., and National 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 641-1 Filed 06/19/19 Page 17 of 17