Court Opinion

ID: 9405013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 00:00:38.656498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:18.555862
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20543         Document: 00516799885             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/26/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      June 26, 2023
                                       No. 22-20543                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   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.
Case: 22-20543      Document: 00516799885           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/26/2023

                                     No. 22-20543

          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 user-
   generated 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.

                                              2
Case: 22-20543     Document: 00516799885            Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/26/2023

                                     No. 22-20543

   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.

                                              3