The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an adult tube website's immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, dismissing claims brought by a plaintiff represented by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE).

Ninth Circuit Upholds Section 230 Immunity for WebGroup Czech Republic

A panel for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week affirming an adult tube website's immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The decision came in a lawsuit initially filed by a legal team led by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE).

NCOSE, with senior counsel Dani Pinter and other anti-pornography lawyers and law firms, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Jane Doe plaintiff against subsidiaries and shell corporations tied to WebGroup Czech Republic, the Czechia-headquartered parent firm of the XVideos and XNXX tube sites. The federal class action lawsuit was filed in March 2021, with Doe as the lead plaintiff, in a U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Co-counsel included Kazerouni Law Group, Levin Papantonio Rafferty, the Zarzaur Law Firm, Laffey Bucci & Kent, and Conrad O’Brien.

Two judges of the three-person panel voted to affirm a lower court decision from 2025. This decision indicated that the plaintiff, known as "Jane Doe," could not apply a FOSTA exception to deny the adult tube site, its ownership group, and its other affiliated properties legal immunity under Section 230. The third judge concurred in part but dissented in part. The ruling affirmed a dismissal of all claims brought on behalf of Jane Doe on grounds that WebGroup has immunity.

NCOSE and co-counsel initially alleged that WebGroup knowingly hosted and profited from child sexual abuse material depicting Jane Doe, who was reportedly trafficked and sold for sex as a minor. At least four videos depicting Doe's abuse were allegedly hosted on WebGroup-owned platforms, including XVideos via the "official channel" of a supposed "content partner" account.

Throughout the case, attorneys for Doe argued that WebGroup Czech Republic engaged in a sex trafficking venture with the "content partner," classified as a third party under most standard interpretations of Section 230. The website's lawyers cited Section 230 as immunizing the platform and its owners from the conduct of a third-party user.

FOSTA Exception Arguments Rejected

Doe's attorneys used FOSTA-SESTA in their arguments. The Ninth Circuit had overturned a previous district court ruling in early 2024 that cited Section 230 immunity as a means to halt the case against XVideos due to user-uploaded content depicting Doe's victimization. However, this is no longer the case.

The FOSTA-SESTA law, which NCOSE championed and had a central role in getting adopted and signed into law during Republican President Donald Trump's first term, changes Section 230's liability protections. It permits civil lawsuits and criminal charges against web platforms that host content promoting prostitution or sex trafficking. The law has been criticized by sex workers' rights activists as forcing digital sex workers engaging in consensual commercial sex work offline and into more dangerous situations. FOSTA-SESTA has also been labeled as overly broad, despite affirmation of its constitutional nature.

For the immediate developments in Jane Doe's case against WebGroup, the Ninth Circuit found that her attorneys failed to adequately offer a sound legal argument to apply the "FOSTA exception" and deprive the defendant class of its claimed Section 230 immunity.

The three judges wrote in their decision, dated August 12, that for Doe to invoke the FOSTA exception, WebGroup "must knowingly benefit from and knowingly assist, support, or facilitate sex trafficking activities," which "requires actual knowledge and a causal relationship between affirmative conduct furthering the sex-trafficking venture and receipt of a benefit."

The court's decision explained that Doe alleged WebGroup maintained "profit-sharing relationships [with] sex traffickers, such as the channel partner who distributed Jane Doe’s abuse videos on the XVideos." However, the decision stated that despite using the term "sex traffickers," Doe did not allege that this channel partner "recruit[ed], entice[d], harbor[ed], transport[ed], provide[d], obtain[ed], advertise[d], maintain[ed], patronize[d], or solicit[ed]" her "to engage in a commercial sex act," as defined in the statute.

The judges ruled that Doe did not adequately plead WebGroup’s knowledge of her sex trafficking. Doe alleged that she "reached out to XVideos and XNXX multiple times over the years, beginning in at least 2017, requesting her abuse videos be removed." The decision concluded, "Therefore, Doe fails to adequately allege WebGroup’s knowledge of and participation in sex trafficking activities for the FOSTA exception to apply."

Industry Reaction

Corey Silverstein, a First Amendment attorney focusing on adult industry clientele, stated that he is pleased with the Ninth Circuit's decision. He said that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of every claim against WebGroup. Silverstein added that the court correctly applied established Section 230 precedent, recognizing that neutral platform functions do not make a website the creator or developer of unlawful third-party content. He also stated that the court confirmed that FOSTA’s exception requires plausible allegations of actual knowledge and affirmative participation in a specific sex-trafficking venture, not conclusory labels or generalized notice. Silverstein concluded that the underlying allegations are serious, but liability must still be determined according to the facts pleaded and the requirements Congress enacted.

Key Facts

  • The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Section 230 immunity for an adult tube website.
  • The lawsuit was filed by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) on behalf of "Jane Doe" against WebGroup Czech Republic, parent company of XVideos and XNXX.
  • The ruling, dated August 12, affirmed a lower court's 2025 decision and dismissed all claims against WebGroup.
  • The court found that the plaintiff failed to adequately argue for the application of the FOSTA exception to deny Section 230 immunity.
  • The decision stated that Doe did not adequately allege WebGroup's knowledge of and participation in sex trafficking activities.
  • Corey Silverstein, a First Amendment attorney, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, citing correct application of Section 230 precedent and FOSTA's exception requirements.