The legislation alternately known as SESTA and FOSTA has gone through multiple iterations. Depending on who you talk to, the latest version is either a welcome compromise or the "worst of both worlds" for internet companies.
Lawyers may differ in their assessments of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but one thing is clear: The anti-sex trafficking law has been a powerful shield for internet companies in fending off liability suits. Now the scope of Section 230 is being redefined by Congress, one of the few times that has happened since 1996.
The U.S. House at the end of February passed its version of a bill known as FOSTA — or Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (H.R. 1865) — and the U.S. Senate is on track to approve it later this month. Here’s an overview of how the legislation has evolved and what it might mean for litigation in the future.
What happened to SESTA?
The bill has gone by two different names, often used interchangeably. SESTA is the name of the legislation introduced in the Senate last August by Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, and stands for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (S. 1693). That bill was amended and approved by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in January.
FOSTA is the name of the companion bill in the House. Both versions underwent significant changes in the legislative process, and the Senate bill is essentially a compilation of the two. Critics like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have referred to it as a “Frankenstein combination.”
What would the legislation do?
The latest version of FOSTA would do several key things. Perhaps most significantly, the bill amends Section 230 to say that nothing in that section limits any civil claim or criminal action under federal anti-trafficking law or criminal prosecution under state law as long as the state law mirrors the federal law. It goes on to expand the scope of what constitutes a crime under federal law and to expressly permit civil actions by state attorneys general.
The bill creates new criminal and civil causes of action for operating a website “with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.” And it amends a separate provision of federal anti-trafficking law to say that “knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating” sex trafficking also constitutes a violation.
Some say the concerns are overblown
Litigators on the other side of this issue certainly don’t think so. “I can’t imagine taking that [position] of, ‘We’re just not going to moderate because then we’re going to have some deniability,’ ” said Takisha Richardson, a former state prosecutor who oversaw trafficking cases in West Palm Beach. Burying your head in the sand is not an option, said Richardson, who recently joined the firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach Gardens. Authorities will contact companies if they find online ads for people they suspect are being trafficked or underage.
To read the full analysis, click here.